This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
The article is biased, it doesn't mention Ukrainian victims of Ukrainian terror, Soviet and Nazi influence, situation of Ukrainians in other countries (SU, Czechoslovakia). Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a lot missing from the article (anything from before 1918, for starters). I think it should be merged, anyway, with Ukrainian minority in Poland. The articles are not long enough to justify splitting them.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
moving back? Rather not back. Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, obviously, and now fixed (you can just make such changes yourself of course).--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while we're here, the sentence "Following the annexation of Red Ruthenia, Poland for the first time in history ruled lands which were not ethnically Polish." is not actually correct, though perhaps it could be made to be correct with some qualifications. Under Boleslaw Chrobry Poland ruled Bohemia and Moravia, "Red Ruthenia" as well Milsko and Luzyce (Lusatians and Sorbs) none of which were ethnically Polish, at least not in a modern sense, though honestly you go that far back, it's really hard to say how much difference there was between 10th/11th century Poles/Czechs/Slovaks/Ruthenians/Sorbs - best way to think of it is as a continuum rather than anything with discrete differences (Malopolanie from Malopolska were probably more similar to both Ruthenians and Slovaks than to Mazovians or even people from Wielkopolska). Anyway, claim needs a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also also, you've re-insterted this part twice:
As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Dmowski, the policies based on his views prevailed and were implemented,[1] with the result of alienating Poland's minorities to such an extent that, even after Piłsudski gained power in 1926, his attempted reforms did not affect the attitude of the minorities.[2] As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Dmowski, the policies based on his views prevailed before Piłsudski's return to power.[2][3]
And I want to raise an objection to the claim that "initially the Polish government was controlled by Dmowski" and hence implemented his policies. In fact it was more of a continuing stand off between the Endeks and the Pilsudskites and both policies manifested themselves in different ways (asterix). Anyway, I'm not seeing it in the source provided though that may be because the particular page is unavailable in google books. The Snyder source even also contradicts the claim somewhat, by saying that it wasn't until after Pilsudski's death that the policies of Dmowski gain currency. Is there a quote and a page number here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(asterix) the main result was that many of the offices were controlled by the agrarian Peasant party, people who were essentially non-ideological, or the semi-conservative parties that were NOT affiliated with Dmowski (Galician conservatives or Christian Democrats). Grabski was an exception here, but you can stack several outright Socialist and Pilsudskite prime ministers and officials who were quite sympathetic to the "minorities issue" in interwar Poland. It should also be noted that during this time the ethnic minority parties were quite strong (relative to their size).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your points, and trust any changes you make. I'm busy in RL and am working quickly here (I checked my watchlist and stil find the time to fix articles I've worked on in the past).Faustian (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely at the text in Snyder, what it says is that the strongest anti-Ukrainian language policy was the "Lex Grabski" of 1924, specifically referring to the time when Grabski was PM. Somehow this got changed to "Initially the Polish government was controlled by Dmowski's faction" - but 1923-1925 is different than 1918-1926.
The info on "Lex Grabski" could be included in this article - it's more precise anyway and it would also fit in/explain some of this graph that I made:
.
Basically, according to Snyder the bilingual schools shown in the graph replaced (or were seen as replacing) Ukrainian language schools.
On a (somewhat) happier note, the Snyder book also has good information on 19th century developments, like discussion of Ukrainian and Polish participation in the January Uprising (I'm thinking of stubbing Edmund Różycki) on pages 121, Polish support of Ukrainian language and nationalism (couple pages later) and how the Russian authorities saw Ukrainian activism as part of a "Polish plot" and blamed the spread of Ukrainian language on the Poles (some of whom ended up in prison for it). Including info like that would add balance to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were very different contexts. In central Ukraine Poles and Ukrainians cooperated very closely. The Poles had no realistic claims on those lands anymore and saw the Russians as the main enemy and rival (as did Ukrainian nationalists). Also, a significant strand of the Ukrainian intelligenstsia from those lands, such as the founder of Ukrainian nationalist school of history Volodymyr Antonovych were Ukrainianized Polish (minor) nobles. Anti-Polish resentments continued among the peasantry, who remembered Polish serfdom, but was absent in the Ukrainian national movement. In Galicia, in contrast, Poles and Ukrainians found themselves competing for the same territory and resources and the relationship was therefore quite bitter. When Ukrainian nationalist exiles such as Hrushevsky were exiled to Lviv they were frequntly shocked by the hatred they saw between the two peoples.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in the article or in the sources? The article alludes to these things in general terms but probably more specifics would help. Also, I see that in fact the "Lex Grabski" is already mentioned in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that a section on UVO/OUN terrorism would be a good idea.Faustian (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We got one side view at the situation. Poor Ukrainians haunted by Poles. In fact all Polish authorities reactions were response to UWO/OUN anti-Polish assassinations. UWO/OUN wanted to cause these repercussions.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paweł, in case you didn't notice, Faustian just said that the information on UVO/OUN terror attacks should be included in the article. You're not helping here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have noticed. This is information for you:) Could you help with translations articles I have pasted above? Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait you're talking about pl:Drugie wystąpienie UWO and pl:Pierwsze wystąpienie UWO, and more: pl:Zamach na Józefa Piłsudskiego we Lwowie (1921)? The last one is certainly significant and should probably be translated. The first two could probably go into a general article on UWO interwar activities for now. I'll try to translate the assassination attempt one for now - and I invite Faustian to help or at least keep an eye on it. In regard to the present article, it just needs a lot of work, period. And I mean, it needs a lot of work that is not even related to any particular view point or ideology - the sections are a mess, most of the stuff in the "Pilsudski's policies" doesn't even cover years when he was in power, there are significant errors of omissions etc. So there's a lot of work to be done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the following edit * 03:51, 1 September 2011 Faustian (talk | contribs) (22,118 bytes) (Removed a lot of stuff referenced to an unreliable source (Poliszczuk), kept Marek's referenced addition).
Contrary to summary, the above edit was a blank revert of everything going back (all the way) to {{Expand section|date=September 2008}}. In total, 10,374 bytes of well referenced info was removed, and the number of citations reduced from 47 to 35, including the following few samples of 12 weblinks to a variety of wp:rs material including books written by reputable scholars, and accessible via Google Books.
^ a b c d e f g h Timothy Snyder. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
^ Michael J. Mikoś. "Middle Ages. Cultural background". Printed in: Polish Literature from the Middle Ages to the End of the Eighteenth Century. A Bilingual Anthology, by Michael J. Mikoś, Warsaw: Constans, 1999. Staropolska online. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
^ Stephen Velychenko (1992). National history as cultural process: a survey of the interpretations of Ukraine's past in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian historical writing from the earliest times to 1914. CIUS Press. ISBN0920862756. Retrieved August 13, 2011.
^ Paul Robert Magocsi (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, page 697.. University of Toronto Press. Retrieved August 24, 2011.
and many others.
The above blank revert of copy was toppled with a personal attack (see: the opening line in the section above): "not yet another of the dozwens (sic) of sockpuppetrs (sic) of banned User:Loosmark" – a false allegation meant to discredit new research. Please, focus on content, OK? This Wikipedia entry is not your venue for political advocacy against any development in Ukrainian-Polish history. And, don't play with words in your summaries, because the article history is there for all to see.
— FoliesTrévise (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I restored the version from July 2011. I did not go all the way back to eptember 2008! I subsequently and immediately afterward went back and added the noncontroversial stuff, and then expanded the article a bit: [1]. Because there is a long history of dozens of sockpuppets of user:Loosmark behaving as you do I expressed hope that you were not one of them.Faustian (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you actually restored is {{Expand section|date=September 2008}}. However, if you don't stop abusing your privileges including subsequent comments on this talk page, I will take it to wp administration. Your personal point of view on what is a "noncontroversial stuff" and who's "behaving as you do" is your opinion, OK? — FoliesTrévise (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I restored the version from July 23rd, with the addition of what Marek posted, as can be seen in the comparison between my edit and the July 23rd version here: [2]. Please refrain from making false statements. I then went back to add some of what I had removed. Other information that was clearly unreliable was kept out.Faustian (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Faustian, there's no advantage in lying on the talk page of Wikipedia, because everything you do in mainspace is automatically recorded. You say, you restored "noncontroversial stuff" after your indiscriminate revert of everything new, but you also restored Soviet propaganda meant only to incite hatred between these two nations. Why? – There's a disturbing pattern to your edits, Faustian. You went to Poliszczuk's bio and defaced it, by putting words in the mouths of his critics in order to make him appear unreliable, and than you went around and removed all info originating from his extensive work, claiming that he "is" unreliable. This is called: "gaming the system". Poliszczuk said that OUN-UPA was a criminal organization. Is that why you're gaming the system now? — FoliesTrévise (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from incivility.Faustian (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poliszczuk said that OUN-UPA was a criminal organization Snyder who seems accepted by Faustian, calls it terrorist organisation. While Poliszczuk published a lot on his own, he also did publish scholarly publications, and these seem to be ok with attribution if relevant.Although better sources probably can be also found.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FoliesTrévise stated that I lied, that I "defaced" Poliszczuk's bio, that I "restored Soviet propaganda" and that I "gamed the system." How unfortunate that you chose to ignore that.Faustian (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am only interested in the article not personal disputes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think MMA's point is that even a broken clock like Poliszczuk can be right twice a day - especially when some of the info is backed up by truly reliable sources like Snyder. And honestly, that's how a lot of these borderline-fringe authors work; they refer to and rely on a lot of honest-to-goodness scholarly sources but then they mix it up with a lot of unfounded very biased opinion. This is pretty much true irrespective of the topic area (god knowns we have to deal with it in other areas), which is why it takes knowledgeable editors with some background to do justice to these controversial topics.
Basically, I would avoid citing things to Poliszczuk or authors like him themselves - however, I do think it would be fine to take these kinds of sources as a basis for looking up things further. So Poliszczuk called OUN-UPA a terrorist organization. Ok, he's not reliable. But if Snyder also says the same thing then ... just cite it to Snyder and be done with it.
I do agree that FoliesTrevise's comments were not helpful here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work of User:FoliesTrévise. This diff: [3] - removal of sourced information plus massive addition of irrelevent information about Poles in the Soviet Union.
That was a content issue. More seriously in that edit, User:FoliesTrévisefalsified what a source wrote. The source is Comments on Timothy Snyder's article, "To Resolve the Ukrainian Question once and for All: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943-1947" Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 1, Number 2 (Spring 1999). Originally the article read: "Between 1934 and 1938, a series of violent and sometimes deadly attacks against Ukrainians were conducted in parts of Poland. requently, Polish police watched these brutal attacks and afterwards arrested the Ukrainian victims for "disturbing the peace." The footnote within the article contained more details: "In one of many such incidents, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw reported that Polish mobs attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitory under the eyes of Polish police, a screaming Ukrainian woman was thrown into a burning Ukrainian store by Polish mobs, and a Ukrainian seminary was destroyed during which icons were desecrated and eight people were hospitalized with serious injuries and two killed. Taken from Jeffrey Burds..." The original source is available online. It reads:
"But the brutality of ethnic Poles towards ethnic Ukrainians is rarely discussed outside of tendentious nationalist accounts. The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone. Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938. Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace. Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police. In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."
User:FoliesTrévise changed the article to read: In Warsaw, on 2–3 November 1938, a militant National Radical Camp (officially delegalised after three months of existence) attacked a Ukrainian Catholic seminary as well as several institutes; set a shop on fire and hurled a woman into it. Several ONR Camp leaders had been interned in the Bereza Kartuska Detention Camp.
Nothing that he wrote was in the references he added, and indeed he used Burds' work as a reference, falsifying what Burds wrote. Burds explictly blamed this violence on followers of the Polish National Democrats. User:FoliesTrévise changed the aticle to blame it on someon else, whom the Polish government eventually arrested, creating the impression (that totally contradicts the source) that these actions were opposed by the Polish authorites.
This subtle sort of dishonesty is a serious violation of wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burds explictly blamed this violence on followers of the Polish National Democrats. - ONR was a split-off of the NDeks, basically the people who thought the ND wasn't radical enough. And in some sources they are treated together, particularly when the term "national democrats" is used to refer to a "movement" rather than a "party". So technically both statements could be correct. I don't know if that's the case here, just pointing it out. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen above, Burds only mentioned National Democrats. So at best, User:FoliesTrévise did original research and falsely attributed it to Burds. Burds' work is clear that these actions were condoned by the Polish authorities. User:FoliesTrévise twists it to make it look like the exact opposite.Faustian (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The fact that the source says "'National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization" does suggest that it's talking about ONR, since "National Democracy" wasn't an organization - that would be Stronnictwo Narodowe - but a movement. Many authors use the terms En-Deks either as a shorthand for all nationalists of this period, including ONR, or simply out of ignorance. I think in terms of the ONR thing, FT's edit is understandable, though perhaps a bit ORish - basically I think he's just relying on background knowledge. With respect to the "actions were condoned by the Polish authorities" the source does state that at least local authorities (police, etc.) and the press condoned it and that should be in there. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:FoliesTrévise added that ONR was banned by the Polish government etc. thus making ti look like the Polish authorities were opposed to such actions, which si the opposite of what the soruce said. He completely changed the meaning of the passage based on his OR which he supported by making false use of references.Faustian (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ONR was in fact banned by the Polish government, though that's not in this particular source. He did change the meaning of the statement. Volunteer Marek 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing User:FoliesTrévise has done. Look at this diff: [4]. Here is the pasage this came from: [5] (I can't cut and paste because its from googlebooks). Hrushevsky says that Galicia was more advanced and European than other parts of Ukraine, attributing this to its existence in Galicia-Volhynia, the presence of German settlers, etc. With reference to the Polish influence specifically, Hrushevsky is unambiguously negative about Polish influence. As can be seen in the diff, User:FoliesTrévise turns Hrushevsky's work on its head, erasing what he specifically wrote about Poland and replacing it with his general statement about Galicia being more advanced, and placing this in a section about Ukraine under Poland in order to create the false impression that Hrushevsky's appraisal of Polish influence was positive when clearly it was quite the opposite.
This sort of sneaky disruption is particularly damaging in wikipedia. It is becoming a pattern with User:FoliesTrévise.Faustian (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1936/37 academic year only 344 Ukrainians (13.3%)in comparison to 2599 Poles were enrolled in middle school. In the 1938/9 academic year only 6 Ukrainians were accepted for tertiary education.[58] In Poland, there was one Polish gymnasium for every 16,000 Poles but only one Ukrainian gymnazium for every 230,000 Ukrainians.
Basically, what are these % of and how is the last one calculated? I find it hard to believe that only 2600 Poles or 344 Ukrainians were enrolled in middle school - out of a population of almost 30 million. Either the term "middle school" means something other than how it is commonly used, this is data for just one town or something else is going on. And this 13.3% - 13.3 percent of what? All students enrolled? All Ukrainians of middle school age?
Ok, I looked more carefully at the last sentence and it makes sense, so no problem with that - except that "gymnasium" should be spelled consistently. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that whole section has a lot of typos in it, both in the text and in the references. That's minor though and can be quickly corrected. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put the 13.3% of ethnic Ukrainians in context by citing the 13.9% of ethnic Ukrainians in the 1931 Polish census, which debunks the claim of injustice in the statistics of secondary education in the Second Polish Republic. No reason has been stated for the removal of that pertinent bit of information, only a personal attack. The numbers cited need to be put in a broader context of other years, and the number of other ethnic groups at different levels, etc. Someone here has another agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove the numbers, only the references to "communist propaganda."Faustian (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since the anti-Ukrainian measures escalated at the end of the 1930's (after Jozewski's removal in 1938 especially) none of the new numbers (from 1936/1937) placed in the article contradict the information presently in the article. As for discrimination, if in 1910 there were as many students enrolled in (Russian-language) schools in Warsaw as in Moscow, would this meant here was no discrimination? Faustian (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there appears to be consensus that the census number should be included, I put them there despite the fact that Faustian removed them, despite his claims to the contrary. In 1910, Ruthenians had an illiteracy rate of 60% in Galicia. Maybe that should be included? For a proper perspective, maybe we need information about language schools for other minorities, i.e., Jews, Germans, and Belorussians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.128.43 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1914 almost 100% of Galician Ruthenian children were enrolled in schools. Overall illiteracy rates were due to older generations not having attended school. "In 1886, only 380,000 children out of 709,000 of mandatory age were actually attending school in Galicia.35 This was remedied by the founding of 1,444 new schools between 1905 and 1914 in Galicia (as compared to only 2,080 between 1868 and 1904), half of which used Ukrainian as the language of instruction. The percentage of school-age children attending school rose from 15.4% in 1855 to 71.0% in 1900, and approached full attendance by 1914 along with the rapid increase in the number of schools.37 Source: chapter 3 of the second book listed here: [6]. It is interesting how Polish nationalists sometimes try to give Poland credit for increased literacy rates in Galicia.Faustian (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources say that rural Ukrainian literacy increased under Poland. There was 6 years of war which you conveniently omit.
Well, literacy rates would improve, after the older illiterate generations would die. According to reliable sources almost 100% school attendance was achieved by 1914. So?Faustian (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland and its single language educational policies. How many Polish citizens who spoke Ukrainian as a first language studied in Vienna or Czecho-Slavakia during the inter war period? If relevant it should go in a foot note.
We are discussing the effect of the single language education policy as it affected the Polish nation's minority that spoke Ukrainian as a first language. Since the 1931 Polish census distinguished only based upon the first language spoken, it is mixing apples and oranges to compare ethnic Ukrainians who spoke Polish as a first language with those who spoke Ukrainian as a first language. Therefore, I deleted it, but feel free to add your comments to Wiki page about the census. I added a link for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article is not about Ukrainian speakers but about ethnic Ukrainians. Information about ethnic Ukrainians, reliably sourced, was restored.Faustian (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So according to Iryna Shlikhta in Nationalism as a Play: Ukrainian Nationalists Playing in the Inter-War Poland, which I have cited, the "underground" university and Polytechnical school were funded by a "Ukrainian Local Student Soviet" which was supported by the Ukrainian Nationalists. This suggests collaboration between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Communists to subvert to Polish state. Any known sources about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre misinterpretation of a non-reliable source: [7] that actually claims the OUN "seldom" used terror and that their activities were all just a game they played. You may want to familiarize yourself with this: [8].Faustian (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that a Sovereign nation discriminated against an ethnic minority is an exceptional claim which requires exceptional proof. Sources cited are only from the ethnic group claiming to be the victims of discrimination. More neutral sources are required to support this claim. Faustian is mischaracterizing the 1931 Polish census which counted people not by ethnicity, but by first language spoken. The educational records from Poland use the same metric, first language spoken, not ethnicity. Faustian is clearly in error here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.5.82 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that a Sovereign nation discriminated against an ethnic minority is an exceptional claim - not really, as it happened (and still happens) all the time. I think it's also in Snyder and possibly in the Radziejowski source though I haven't looked at that one yet.Volunteer Marek 19:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of reliable sources for the information included in this article; indeed, every bit of information is based on a reliable source (a book published by a university, a peer-reviewed journal, a well-known historian, etc.) Please point out a specific statement in the article that is not referenced to a reliable source, and we can discuss it and remove it, rather than just remove info and disrupt the article.Faustian (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conference Programme, Abstracts and Papers
2nd Global Conference
Monday 22nd July – Wednesday 24th July 2013
Mansfield College, Oxford
Now I understand that he considers himself superior to what Oxford University deems academically proper, but he is out of line here. This is going up. Sanctions will be requested. The Ukrainian Nationalist bias of this page violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.5.82 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conference is about play, not about history, with topics such as "Skipping Rope as Noose: Exploring Dark Play and Contemporary Arts Practice". Statements taken from a paper at a conference about a different subject aren't as reliable as are peer-reviewed works about that topic by specialists in that field. If a defender of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists used this paper to include "seldom terror was used" (a claim made by the author, whose paper presents Ukrainian nationalism of the 1930's as a generally harmless game played by bored students) about the OUN this claim referenced to this conference would be removed from the OUN article, and justifiably so. Also, please refrain from personal attacks.Faustian (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After World War I Poland found itself with two very different ethnic Ukrainian regions (Galicia and Volhynia), with different histories, religions, etc. Poland pursued different policies in each of these regions. Perhaps the section involving interwar Poland ought to be reorganized, with a general section (National Democrat vs. Pilsudski approaches, total Uke population, etc.) covering the background information and then two sections, one about Galicia and one about Volhynia, each with its own subheadings devoted to significant aspects of life under Polish rule. This might be less confusing and might palce the info (such as Orthodox Church destruction) in its proper geographic context.Faustian (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large Ukrainian bias in this work so far which repeats Soviet style antipolonism without sources. The difference between the self declared Lithuanian Pilsudski and the idiot Dmowski needs to be addressed to explain where things went wrong. Ethnically mixed Catholic Galicia needs to be distinguished from Orthodox Volhnia. These were different regions culturally, ethnically, and by religion. Modern Ukrainians don't understand how different Galicia was before WWII.
195.238.180.57 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Gross supports that there was much Soviet anti-Polish propaganda at work here against all things Polilsh:
Jan Tomasz Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, Princeton University Press, 2002, ISBN0-691-09603-1, p. 35-36
Soviet Propaganda is also referenced elsewhere and should be included. Gross is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia on this point, and it should be addressed here to avoid the Ukrainian Nationalist POV being promoted by some here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only information specifically described as propaganda in reliable sources can be labeled as such. No original research.Faustian (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's several issues of contention in this revert [9] (and the corresponding other one). Looking over it quickly I tend to think that Faustian's version is more neutral and, well, just better. For example, I don't see the point in noting that Pilsudski was a "a self declared Lithuanian" - why is that relevant or related, even putting aside what "Lithuanian" actually means in this context?
Some of the other stuff is simply weaseling the language, like replacing "Ethnic Ukrainians were slightly underrepresented in the secondary education system" with "Ukrainian language speakers may have been slightly underrepresented in the secondary education system", and Himka is a reliable source so there's no justification for removal of that.
The other issue is the citing to this "play" conference. I don't see a reason to insert "short lived" in there, especially if it did have 1500 students (which AFAICT is not being disputed)
The other claims based on this paper are that
A "Ukrainian Local Student Soviet" financed these illegal institutions through a so called ‘voluntary’ tax of Ukrainians in Galicia. This "tax", which was supported by Ukrainian Nationalists caused these institutions to lose support from Galician Ukrainians. - I'm guessing the problem here is with the word "Soviet" which implies some kind of connection to Bolshevik Russia. But of course the word "soviet" just means "council".
Ukrainian Nationalists did not attend such institutions to receive a degree, but as a form of protest and feel a part of an underground community - this does appear to be in the source and it makes sense since the degrees awarded by these institutions were not officially recognized.
So there is some interesting info here, though I do think it'd be good to find other sources, ones written by historians, to back this up.
I also don't see much point in changing:
Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia. In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools.
to
Ukrainians unhappy with Polish language instruction were free to study in the Ukrainian language in Vienna or Czechoslovakia.
That seems like a pretty POV (and frankly somewhat obnoxious) way of putting it. Here I'll have to take a closer look at the Radziejowski source.
Is there a way we could incorporate the two bulleted points into the text but leave out the other anon IP changes? Volunteer Marek 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first bullet point is interesting and rather controversial. Frankly I have never come across another source that has made a similar claim. Moreover, this particular source is at best borderline reliable. It's not from a peer-reviewed published book or paper but from a conference dedicated to a non-historical topic - play - written by a non-notable author. Given that the information is unique and that it comes from such a questionable source, I'm inclined either not to use it or at the very least write "it has been claimed..." until we find corroboration for that somewhere. As for the second statement, first of all it was factually incorrect. According to this reliable source: [10] the Lviv underground university was recognized by foreign universities. Its professors were former Austrian-era university professors who were fired by the new Polish government. Moreover, would someone write similar things about Polish underground schools such as the Flying University in the Russian Empire? That Poles "did not attend such institutions to receive a degree, but as a form of protest and feel a part of an underground community?" because it was a fun game they were playing (the point fo that paper)?
Thank you for your thoughtfulness.Faustian (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given your source as to the recognition of the diplomas by foreign universities, I think we can drop bullet point two, though it'd be nice to know which foreign universities recognized it etc (I expect Austrian, maybe German ones did). I would also hold off on bullet point one until and if there's other sources which talks about this, though the claim did pique my interest.Volunteer Marek 01:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and looking at the Radziejowski source, this sentence Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia. In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools. is true but phrased a bit awkwardly, specifically the "in that country" part. What he's saying is that under Austria-Hungary there was no Ukrainian language schools in Transcarpathian Ukraine UNTIL the Czechoslovak state was established, but once it came into being, the progress in Ukrainian language schooling there, unlike in Poland, was rapid [11]. Volunteer Marek 02:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll fix the wording.Faustian (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does Radziejowski distinguish between Rusyn and Ukrainian language schools? Acc. to Magocsi: "even by the end of the 1930s the general environment in the province [ Carpathian Ruthenia ] was not pro-Ukrainian. This was evident in the results of a kind of referendum carried out in 1937 by the Czechoslovak government among local parents, who were asked which language they wanted for instruction in schools. A majority of schools (73 percent) voted against having their children taught in Ukrainian. The height of Ukrainian propaganda in Subcarpathia was reached in late 1938-early 1939, during the period of autonomous Carpatho-Ukraine. The subsequent period of Hungarian rule revealed, however, that the Ukrainian idea penetrated only a small percentage of young people. In general, Rusyn society remained indifferent to Ukrainian propaganda in 1938-1939, and if anything, felt nostalgia for the previous era of Czechoslovak rule. (...) In 1946 all Rusyns were by force recorded by the Soviet administrative organs as Ukrainian." (Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture. 2005. p. 512). Rusyns are recognized as a national/ethnic minority and have separate linguistic status in all the east European states in which they live, except Ukraine - Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, BiH (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages). Hedviberit (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Jean-Paul Himka. (1992). Western Ukraine between the Wars. Canadian Slavonic Papers. Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1992), pp. 391-412, Ukrainianization was pursued in the 1920's, this was eventually switched to a strong Rusynophile system later in the 1930's. At any rate, language policy seems to have been driven by what the locals wanted rather than what the national state dictated as was the case in Poland (the point of the comparison in this article). Rather than impose Czech, or Hungarian, from the start the local East Slavic population was learning in its own east Slavic language. Essentially, it looks like the Czechoslovaks were being guided by the local community; the Ukrainophiles were mobilized quicker but as the rest of the population caught up the schools became more Rusyn-oriented (but still about 1/4 Ukrainian). An overview here: [12]. Faustian (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Herviberit, thank you for join us to add a very welcome additional point of view. The work cited by Radziejowski was first published in Communist Poland in 1976 before making its way West into English:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155
The comment is only used as introductory or background information, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history, and some here continue to push a POV that Poland had some obligation to continue the Hapsburg educational system that left it trailing a country like Germany in industrialization. Poland had good reason for instituting one national language for education, but if that goes up on the page it won't stay for long, because it will disruptive to the POV being pushed here.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Radziejowski's work was indeed "independently confirmed" when a new edition (the one used in this article) was published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta, thus meeting wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. About this book: "A well researched and comprehensive treatment... Will interest historians of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" -- John-Paul Himka, American Historical Review.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the author of that "play" paper is/was a history graduate student at this university. That paper [13] is actually an interesting read though I would also hesitate to use it as a reliable source (it might be ok for some things) and it's the kind of "history work" that can be sort of irritating.Volunteer Marek 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source here is a professor of history in a Ukrainian university who is considered an authority on the Second Polish Republic. Therefore, she is a reliable source and is recognized as such at universities in Poland and Oxford University in the UK. Whether or not this specific work has been peer reviewed, does not impeach the author as a reliable source as much as someone here wants to ignore her work and academic status in Ukraine and abroad.
This is not true. She is not a professor but listed as an assistant: [14] at a university of unknown reputation called the "National Transport University", in an academic department "Department of Theory and History of State and Law" founded in 2003. The paper at Oxford wasn't for anything involving Oxford's history department about was at a conference about "play."Faustian (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Faustian is being reported for edit warring, cyberhounding/cyberstaliking and harassment and in violation of Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so the disruptions continue.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is a problem with one editor attempting to dominate the page with a certain ethnic POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.
Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "In 1924 the Polish government excluded the Ukrainian language from use in government institutions. It also avoided the official use of the word "Ukrainian", replacing it with the historical name "Ruthenian".[22]" We see who is pushing a non-neutral POV here, and which one.Faustian (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The work cited by Radziejowski was first published in Communist Poland in 1976 before making its way West into an English translation in 1983: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155
(The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate.) The comment is only used as introductory or background information, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history.
According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic. Now better is a subjective term, but considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor occurred in the Ukrainian S.S.R., it defies belief from anyone other than a communist apologist. So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported? You will note the response, or lack thereof, from the editor presently holding the page hostage to his POV.
Jan Gross also disagrees and note that Poles saw "in the marketplace how these Soviet people ate eggs, shell and all, horseradish, beets, and other produce. Country women rolled with laughter" Jan Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (2002), pg. 46 We have other contemporary accounts:
"All witnesses are unanimous in stating that the Bolshevik troops on entering this part of Poland (which was generally regarded as a poor and backward region) were seized with admiration for the extraordinary wealth and abundance of the country into which they marched. …
The women," writes an eye-witness, " wore rags wrapped round their feet or felt slippers, instead of shoes: they brought all their family belongings in one battered suitcase, and sometimes even an iron bedstead. Bedding was not known to them and the luxury of fresh linen was never dreamed of in the Soviet Republic, even by dignitaries and important women commissars. The pick of the Soviets sent out for display to this bourgeois country were ignorant of the simplest arrangements of everyday life. Accustomed to being herded together, they did not understand the superfluous habit of enjoying individual lodgings: bathrooms and kitchens they considered as uncanny inventions, and their way of feeding and housekeeping could - by its extreme misery and primitivity - only make one think of the simplicity of requirements attributed to cave-dwellers."
The Soviet Occupation of Poland , Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski.
http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html
Now what Faustian refers to as “blatant falsification of a source” was in fact moderating POV from a clearly unreliable and dated source. He simply refuses to work collaboratively with others who attempt to edit the page and resorts to labeling anyone with a differing perspective “disruptive”. However, another editor posted the following reply about Ukrainian language instruction in Czechoslovakia
“Acc. to Magocsi: "even by the end of the 1930s the general environment in the province [ Carpathian Ruthenia ] was not pro-Ukrainian. This was evident in the results of a kind of referendum carried out in 1937 by the Czechoslovak government among local parents, who were asked which language they wanted for instruction in schools. A majority of schools (73 percent) voted against having their children taught in Ukrainian. The height of Ukrainian propaganda in Subcarpathia was reached in late 1938-early 1939, during the period of autonomous Carpatho-Ukraine. The subsequent period of Hungarian rule revealed, however, that the Ukrainian idea penetrated only a small percentage of young people. In general, Rusyn society remained indifferent to Ukrainian propaganda in 1938-1939, and if anything, felt nostalgia for the previous era of Czechoslovak rule. (...) In 1946 all Rusyns were by force recorded by the Soviet administrative organs as Ukrainian." (Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture. 2005. p. 512). Rusyns are recognized as a national/ethnic minority and have separate linguistic status in all the east European states in which they live, except Ukraine - Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, BiH (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Dispute
Again you will note the contentious response from Faustian, and how the entire page is being dominated by Faustian, with the concurrence of exactly one other user name, whose purpose appears to be to appear whenever Faustian has one of his many disagreements with other editors to side with Faustian. This page simply lacks anything approaching a NPOV.
In conclussion, using Soviet era Communist propaganda from a 1976 communist publication is not a NPOV and it is the person who insists on employing it who is being disruptive, petty, and narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of Radziejowski's work:
"A significant contribution... to the history of the Comintern, the KP(b)U, and the Ukrainian question in Europe." -- Roman Solchanyk, Slavic Review
"A well researched and comprehensive treatment... Will interest historians of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" -- John-Paul Himka, American Historical Review
Janusz Radziejowski (1925–2002), historian, was born in Kyiv and was a graduate of the University of Warsaw. He studied under the eminent Ukrainian historian Mykhailo Slabchenko and published widely on twetieth-century Ukrainian history. He was involved in underground publications, particularly the journal Krytyka [16], and helped with the preparation of underground Polish edition of John Armstrong's and Alexander Motyl's books on Ukrainian nationalism.
Form the Encyclopedia of Solidarity:[17] He was awarded by the Polish government in 2007.
To smear him as a communist propagandist is not very nice or realistic. But typical behavior by this disruptive IP.Faustian (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous IP also makes a false statement. He falsely claims "The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate." Wrong. See here: [18]. "I began to realize the complexity of the issue rather late, in 1980. I was working closely at that time with a scholar from Poland who was a visiting professor at CIUS, Janusz Radziejowski. He was mainly in Edmonton to help prepare the uncensored English version of his book on the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, which the Institute published in 1983." Quote by John-Paul Himka.
From the false statements, the flooding of the talk pages with irrelevant information, and personal attacks it's becoming clear that this IP is disruptive even when pages are semi-protected from him, and that he may need to be blocked.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the view of the "exactly one other user name" - I'm actually not that familiar with Radziejowski but from everything I've seen he's a reliable source. Other historians (in both West and Poland) speak highly of him and the Solidarity/recognition thing pretty much shows that he was no Communist propagandist.Volunteer Marek 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, someone here is ignorant of the difference between a revised or second edition and a censored text. Polish censors would blank out things that could not be published. Things were published with blank white space to show that something had been censored. All that has been stated is that that the original text was published in the West in 1983 with the censored text now published in an English translation. This is not a second edition of anything. Even if the work was published in the West, this individual never appears to have emigrated from the Soviet Bloc at the time and also would have been under pressure to not stray to far from official Soviet history to keep his job. The work dates to 1976 or earlier, and is also dated. It must be again noted that education is not the focus of the work, and the context of the quote is that all things were better for Ukrainians and Belorussians in the Soviet Union than they were in the Second Polish Republic in the interwar period. Now that is an incredible statement considering the mass starvation in Soviet Ukraine, but hey, the food was confiscated by a government that used Ukrainian as an official language. So things must have been better in the U.S.S.R. even if people had to resort to cannibalism of dead family members to survive. Better really depends on one's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
So here is the rest of the quote from Janusz Radziejowski:
"In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries; in terms of employment and wages, Ukrainians and Belarussians were even worse off than they had been in tsarist Russia...”[reply]
For this statement to have been true, for Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities to have been worse than in neighboring countries in terms of employment and wages, this would mean that Ukrainians and Belarussians in the Second Polish Republic would have been worse off than those it the Soviet Union. So I have asked Faustian this question:
“So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported?”
He has not answered that question. He has given us a link to a discussion about how many died in the Holodomor, from which we may assume that he is now acknowledging that it did occur. Therefore, we must demand that he provide us evidence of a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported. We are waiting...
Lastly, even a respected academic is limited by the information which is available to him. When all that is available to him is official government propaganda, the conclusions which he tdraws from that information are unreliable. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but those who have an agenda refuse to consider common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The writer was discussing the 1920s, as is clearly written in the quote you posted, when the situation of Ukrainians was indeed better in many ways in the Ukrainian SSR than in Poland (this is why, during that time, many Ukrainians moved to the USSR). You do realize that the Holodomor occurred in the 1930's rather than the 1920's?
You do realize multiple IPs by the same user is a form of sockpuppetry? You have been warned about this here:[19]Faustian (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fair comparison of life for Ruthenians in the interwar period in Poland vs. the U.S.S.R. would note that those in the U.S.S.R. had been systematically starved, while in Poland there was relative prosperity, and not the propaganda that has been presented here by you and your Communist era historian without any credible source. They did have options to choose which country in which they wanted to live under the Treaty of Riga and St. Germain. Somehow life in the U.S.S.R. could hardly be considered better by any serious person. But using your sole metric of recognition of Ukrainian as an official language, the thousands of deaths in the Holodomor are irrelevant for comparison. That is your point of view, but most people would consider its effect of those deaths and the effects of malnutrition and psychological effects of cannibalism on the survivors.
Furthermore, it is well noted that the closest thing to a referendum on Soviet rule in the Kresy (Eastern Poland) was when men attempted to vote with their feet and join the Polish army of General Anders. The Soviets refused to permit many who were not ethnic Poles from leaving the U.S.S.R. (Harvey Sarner, Anders and the Soldiers of the Second Polish Corps (1998) pg. 95, 101) So much for how bad things were in the Second Polish Republic. Your myth is busted and so is the communist era propaganda. Of course, Ukrainian nationalists have different heroes:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52209227
The following refutes your claims which you are using to further disrupt participation on this board:
“Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry
Continue the harassment at your own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.33.133 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like in your abusive posts you cannot decide whether other editors are Communists or Nazis.Faustian (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, rather than posting long paragraphs about what you think the situation was, please at least reference a specific passage in the article and source. There already is a sentence in the article which states "the Ukrainian cultural life and political representation in Poland sharply contrasted with that of the Stalinist Soviet Union.[37] The Ukrainian people in the Soviet Ukraine "suffered more from Stalin's rule than any other European part of the USSR" in the same period, ravaged by the terror of Great Famine and the killing of thousands of educated Ukrainians" which addresses most of your points. The comparison with other countries that I see is that with Czechoslovakia, which was discussed above. And in the case of Czechoslovakia the situation of Ukrainians, at least in terms of education, was indeed better than in the 2nd Polish Republic. I don't see any comparisons with Belarus. I also don't see any statement claiming that life was better in Soviet Ukraine, unless I'm missing something.Volunteer Marek 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
