Jump to content

Talk:Slava Ukraini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera

[edit]

I noticed latest edits are based on Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. Fascism, Genocide, and Cult . This work has a negative review - please see [1]

A conscientious historian must take into account not only the facts that supporthis working hypothesis, but also the ones that do not fit it. Unfortunately,Rossolinski-Liebe does not always observe this rule and sometimes consciouslyor unconsciously adjusts the facts to an a priori scheme of ‘fascism’, ‘racism’ and‘genocidal nationalism’. ... The author regards the OUN as an ideological monolith, which it wasnot. Fascism, Nazism, antisemitism, totalitarianism, terror had both their sup-porters and critics in the ranks of the organization, yet the author carefully citesonly the supporters. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly said. Arorae (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rossoliński-Liebe is a recognised scholar. Some Ukrainian historians, mainly apologists for the OUN and the UPA, are of course opposed to his works because they reveal inconvenient truths. There is no reason to remove refrences to his works. @Arorae please self-revert, especially since you removed references to Lipovetsky also. Marcelus (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. Ukrainians are not always apologetic toward the OUN, just have a look to WPuk page about the crimes committed by OUN a members! nothing has to be revealed, even for Ukrainian historians. But definitely Rossoliński-Liebe has his own point of view about Bandera, and his work is not recognised by the majority of historians. Please, instead of inserting text in the intro, discuss first here. Arorae (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, the closer the author gets to the present and the more political his state�ments become, the shakier and more questionable his arguments. There is no doubt
that Ukraine (like many other post-Communist countries) has yet to seriously
address the difficult aspects of its history in general, and of collaboration in the
Holocaust in particular. I fear, however, that some of the author’s rather careless
generalizations will have counterproductive effects. These include his cryptic and
euphemistic mention of “political conflicts in 2013–2014” and the “civil war in
2014,” and the mistaken statement that “democracy and the concept of civil
society have not played any major role in Ukrainian cultural, intellectual, and
political life” (p. 556). Addressing critical historical issues needs time—as
Rossolinski-Liebe himself notes (p. 559) ´ —and a favorable overall climate. With
Ukraine at war and its economy under tremendous strain, the prevailing situation
is unfortunately not very conducive to engaging in such painful debates. [2] Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As correctly said by better scholars than me: “Despite the author’s [Rossoliński-Liebe] insistence on acknowledging his quasi-exclusive focus on the crimes committed by the OUN and UPA, as the two organisations associated with Bandera, at the expense of those perpetrated either by Nazi Germany or the Ukrainian police, by the Red Army, or by the Polish Home Army in its retaliation against the mass murder of Poles by the UPA, and in the absence of limited information beyond some dry figures related to the number of victims, the narrative necessarily appears rather one-sided and requires considerable knowledge on the part of the reader about the Holocaust in Ukraine to fill in the missing pieces of information. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have been avoided given the purpose of the book, which is to provide a biography of Bandera and the organisations he led in the course of his lifetime, the picture of Ukrainians as “both victims and perpetrators” in the course of World War II is significantly inclined towards the latter. Moreover, despite the acknowledgment of several factors other than “the nationalist and racist ideology of the OUN-B” that help explain the transformation of “ordinary men and women into murderers” (p. 279), some of these, such as the absence of a “strong administration in these territories at a time when the front was changing” (p. 280) are insufficiently explored, despite their proven significance in the history of the Holocaust (Snyder, 2012).” written by R. Cârstocea, a Romanian scholar.[1] Arorae (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, just found the same review Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are citing yet another review, that only says Rossoliński-Liebe should explore the topic broader, it doesn't exclude him as WP:RELIABLE source, and I once again ask you to self-revert. Let me remind you of WP:NOTCENSORED. Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this response you are just ignoring what's been said by another scholar.
But we should not ignore. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of your fist edit was that one ([3]), you shouldn’t tell me how Wikipedia and history works, as I started here more than 10 years before you ever did. And I am a scholar myself (by the way even if it doesn’t count at all). Arorae (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance on the edit you brought up? Marcelus (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the one concept that still remains problematic in Rossoliński-Liebe’s biography of
Stepan Bandera is that of ‘fascism’. ... Yet, despite a comprehensive overview
demonstrating his thorough familiarity with the main theoretical approaches to the concept
associated with the so-called ‘new consensus’ in fascist studies, the definition adopted by the author (p. 33) appears at once too broad and extensive and in some respects ill-suited for the case study under consideration. ... The frequent association of the concept
of fascism with anti-Semitism or ethnic violence in general is also a problematic one, as
considerable evidence (such as the aforementioned regime of Ion Antonescu) points to
numerous parties, movements, or regimes that displayed the latter without necessarily being fascist. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An indictment rather than a biography. Rossoliński-Liebe does not contribute to the understanding of why a substantial part of today’s western Ukrainian population supported Bandera and why he has become a symbol in the fight for independence. Before the Second World War, different nationalist, radical, right-wing, authoritative and fascist movements were on the rise throughout Europe. Therefore, their emergence in Ukraine is nothing exceptional.
Unfortunately, the first academic bi�ography of Stepan Bandera is a failure. The author has based his work on the conviction that his character and object of scientific research is a condemnable criminal. As for those who have recog�nised him as a national hero and a mar�tyr (since 1959), both in Ukraine and in exile, for nearly all of the 20th century, they have merely covered up and legiti�mised his crimes. Ukrainian nationalism is evil and Ukrainians should give it up. Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe’s book is a somewhat monotonous 600-page long indictment, not a biography.
For Rossoliński-Liebe, Bandera was and ap�parently remains a condemnable symbol of Ukrainian fascism, antisemitism, ter�rorism and an inspiration for anti-Jewish pogroms and even genocide. However, as a historian, he should not be commit�ting such an abusive oversimplification, uprooting events and people from the context of the era or using harsh, un�founded and emotional judgments. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=459570 Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:RSN, it's not a place for this. Rossoliński-Liebe is reliable unless proved otherwise on that forum. You need to understand that even negative review doesn't make the book unreliable. Marcelus (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to discuss latest edits here. Here, another historian, Zaitsev, specifically criticises Liebe's
Hesees fascism everywhere, even in the greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’, groundlesslyattributing its invention to a small and little-known Ukrainian Union of Fascists(34), when in reality it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists. [4]
Also, nobody says Liebe is not reliable. Please do not raise false argument. It's that the specific critique of his work that should be taken into account. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His opinion was already mentioned. You can of course post it here, but if you want Rossoliński-Liebe to be regarded as unreliable you need to achieve it on the proper noticeboard. Marcelus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this author seems to be controversial, so we shouldn't repeat his claims blindly in wikivoice without also representing the prominent opposing arguments and criticisms of his analysis. HappyWith (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit, reverted by @Arorae, I was trying to present four the views of four historians, among them Rossoliński-Liebe. Marcelus (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have read the diffs more carefully. HappyWith (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using some of these sources maybe reasonable, but it is not clear what exactly change in the text was suggested. You guys are making a lot of changes at the same time and revert each other. If you can all agree about something, I will probably agree with any version you all agree with. Speaking on specific diff [5], I would oppose to such massive changes because they heavily rely on a few cherry-picked sources and make an impression of promoting certain POV. More modest changes in this direction might be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes if you would allow me to work on the article instead of reverting every change I made without any proper reason, you would see that I was trying to write actually balanced article, which it isn't right now sadly. Marcelus (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to reach the consensus first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert Consensus about what exactly? I don't see any attempt of the discussion about content, I don't really know what is wrong with the content I propose Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors presented you scholars criticizing your addition of Liebe's origins of the slogan. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert and I acknowledged that, and in my next edit I included information about the controversy surrounding the origins and presented other views about the greetings origins, not only Liebe's. But then I was accused of reverting other's changes and not listening to others. I'm now under impression that nobody is actually reading my edits and just being against it out of principle Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page discussion has been cited in another article's talk page, where Rossolinski-Liebe has also been questioned as a reliable source, so I am commenting here even though the debate has been dormant for three months. With history, there are legitimate disagreement on interpretations, and their are errors or dishonesty about facts, and these are not the same. Other scholars have disagreed with Rossolinski-Liebe's interpretations, as he would no doubt disagree with those, and where there is any disagreement we should attribute interpretations to their authors. For example, if Rossolinski-Liebe say "Bandera is a fascist" and reputable historian X says "Bandera is not a fascist", we should cite both with attribution. However, there appears to be no evidence here that Rossolinski-Liebe is an unreliable source for facts or so unreliable that his opinions should be excluded. He is a widely regarded historian, heavily cited, published in peer reviewed outlets. There is no reason to infer from this discussion that he should be considered anything other than an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandera is not a fascist, that's a WP:FRINGE view shared by few Ukrainian historians. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"fascist-style" vs "fascist"

[edit]

@Tristario can you explain the difference between those two? Marcelus (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They effectively mean the same thing - they're referring to a particular style of salute. But given the different descriptions in the sources, I think "fascist-style" is more WP:NPOV, and I also think it's clearer, since it makes clear we're talking about a particular style of salute. Tristario (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fascist" is neutral and the actual name of the salute. I don't know why you are putting Zaitsev above Rossoliński, Zaitsev is a master at creating evasions. And this is the dodge of distancing the OUN from 'fascism'. Marcelus (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Katchanovski also says "fascist-style" [6]. And Zaitsev is as far as I can tell a respected scholar. He would not be telling Deutsche Welle about how the OUN used a fascist-style salute if he were some kind of OUN apologist. You should know that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. Tristario (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is good correction to "fascist-style". That is what Roman salute is. As about "fascist", a typical reader would think this is Nazi salute, which is a variety of Roman salute, but still a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, people would think about fascist salute, because that's the wording used, not nazi salute Marcelus (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is ridiculous for you, but it is exactly what I thought: that the "fascist salute" is Sieg Heil. And I assume that a typical reader will think the same. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we shouldn't adjust to the typical leader, also he wouldn't be that wrong, Sieg Heil imitates fascist salute. Marcelus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do secondary sources describe this association between the salute and the slogan? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Only extended-confirmed editors can request moves related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Ukraini → Glory to Ukraine – Per WP:USEENGLISH, according to Google Ngram viewer. 2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was moved a year ago in exactly opposite direction for the very reason that the original Ukrainian version became very popular in English-speaking world and media. What happened that would justify reversing that move? Marcelus (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, at least two reasons to favor the proposal. Killuminator (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

[edit]

Change Dutch Prime Minister to Dutch Demissionair Prime Minister. 2003:A:83B:6A00:319E:40F0:1B9C:5ADE (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The Prime Minister was not demissionair at the time of the cited speech. PianoDan (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2024

[edit]

Slava Ukraini → Glory to Ukraine – Per WP:USEENGLISH, according to Google Ngram viewer. But also I'm an extended-confirmed user. Absolutiva (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved in March 22 in exactly opposite direction for the very reason that the original Ukrainian version became very popular in English-speaking world and media. What happened that would justify reversing that move? Marcelus (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Ngram mentioned with sources going about two to one in favor of "Glory to Ukraine" is very popular in English-speaking world and media, rather than "Slava Ukraini" a Ukrainian romanization. Despite a political slogan that is also common usage is breaking with WP:NPOV.
Sources also mentioned in Associated Press, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, VOA News, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as well as other English-language sources. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:UE, if a loan word/name is used predominantly in English language sources then it is English
Kowal2701 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is widely understood in English and every language. TamsaVakaras (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [7]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slava_Ukraini&oldid=1256663215"