Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

MASSIVE EDITS

We have one editor who applies massive edits - all these edits have been reverted by multiple editors. My suggestion for this editor is to take the ONE edit that you feel is the most important and only change that. Be prepared to discuss it. MASSIVE EDITS will not go through.

GOOGLE TRANSLATION TO RUSSIAN

У нас есть один редактор, который применяется массовые изменения, - все эти изменения были вернуться на несколько редакторов. Мое предложение для этого редактора заключается в том, чтобы принять один прав, что вы считаете, является наиболее важным и лишь изменить это. Будьте готовы обсуждать его. МАССОВЫЕ правок не пойду до конца.

Bobanni (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear group of editors, Let me remind you what WP:ISNOTDEMOCRACY. Your continued unexplained blanking and inserting OR and biased tiny minority visions heavily discredit the WP reliability. Until now none from mentioned by me issues were not addressed nor for any of data removal were not provided non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content. Please fill free to follow the WP recommendation first.

Unfortunately edit-wars will not have any results. OR, twisted source citing, unreliable and malicious propaganda will be reverted – to preserve WP reliability and credibility. Jo0doe (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have clown in our midst whose constant destructive edits and constant sarcastic remarks discredit WP reliability, and go against the idea of co-operation within wikipedia. I support Bobanni. JoDoe if you have any valid contribution to make. Make it one at a time so that they can be discussed. Bandurist (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read huge not replied issues above at this talk page first before made any claims regarding editors. Also please follow WP rules regarding article sources and Jo0doe (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed, just not to your personal satisfaction.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist don't call people clowns! Half a year ago you were not any better than Jo0doe and yet we have managed to settle some of our diffrences there (though a few frozen disputes still remain). Jo0doe, honestly if you want your additions to be integrated into the article, I strongly recommend you abandon this tactic of repeated reverts, all that will do is get you blocked for sterile edit warring. Instead why not try to take it one section at a time, and leave the rest of the article inert, also remember these people here are not going to magically dissapear and if they did new ones will come about, this is a sensitive topic and is on the watchlist of more than one editor. Remember there is a WP:POINT policy and it is important that both you and your opponents understand that, so try to make your edits less radical and more integrating with the previous sections. Same goes for the opposite party, instead of reverting have a good look and see if you can filter off some of the additions. --Kuban Cossack 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one issues has been addressed (propaganda poster) rest - remains as is (for Instance Krochmalyuk page number missed). As regerds rest - I've edit inline with WP policy - which does not limit the type edits (I prefer to wright whole article) while limits the usage of propaganda and unreliable data (even some WP:RS given such - Errare Humanum Est) so unexplained blanking of important refrenced through differernt WP:RSdata explained as vandalism - anyway Jo0doe (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

However both point represent in my edits - OUN/UPA, Soviet, Poles, Jews, Germans and International community (International Military Tribunal data). But someone prefer @have to have visual impact@ and @doctored history@ Jo0doe (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo0 you did not understand my message. It is not a question of whether you are right or wrong! It is a question that you have to understand that you cannot just make a complete change of the article without taking into account that there are other editors there who might disagree with you. Personally I am very sympathetic to your views, my view of this filth which terrorized Western Ukraine for almost a decade, considering some of my -in-law's family were victims of them is very negative. However even if I have sources to back me up, it is immoral per WP:EQ to do what you are doing. Please stop, and take it one step of a time. Wikipedia goes by consensus, and until you reach a compromise with your opponents they are not going to stop. I am neither an admin nor a professional mediator, so I am limited in what I can do, however I would rather see this dispute be settled on the talk page then in the long beuracratic WP:DR processes. --Kuban Cossack 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm don't care about the past - I simply follow the WP:NOHOAXES policy - If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. In same time a don't understood why rule "persistent perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning" is not work. I also can note WP:BURDEN -The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. And WP:SOURCES. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

So rest editors are not oppose to my view - they oppose to WP policy.Jo0doe (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sluzhba Bezbeky and NKVD_units_dressed_as_UPA_fighters

I assume removal of info from main article was a main target - to redistribute data in order to made a harder an assessment of "brave" strory for visitors. Noone simply dont like to read book http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/ carefully If you not delete my version without reading - you will be know when UPA adopted "povstansi" for UPA kossaksJo0doe (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty about Sluzhba Bezpeky already in this article and since the article is about UPA not NKVD the NKVD fighters dressed as UPA are inded mentioned but not described as thoroughly as in their own article. You are objecting to the removal of lots of grisly details that you inserted into the article when this article already contains many such details. Indeed, there are already more grisly descriptions of what UPA did to civilians in this article than, for example, in the article on the SS, Ustaše, etc.Faustian (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• DYK what most (NKVD fighters dressed as UPA) of them was former UPA?

Citation please that most NKVD dressed as UPA were former UPA. If you find it, we'll put it in. If it's just original research, we won't.Faustian (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

read book http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/ carefully - it has less the Krochmalyuk pages (and even all with number) - I reccomend you to start from 1945 chapter Jo0doe (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Page number, please, with quote stating that most NKVD dressed as UPA were former UPA.Faustian (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA dressed as UPA you mean? p379 - So can I expect pages from Krokhmalyuk?Jo0doe (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• DYK - lot means a 650page book about atrocites - while here only few bites of texts.

I'm sure that there are 650 page books about atrocities by SS and Ustashe. Nevertheless, the articles about those respective organizations contain much less grisly details about their atrocities than this page does about UPA's atrocities. We have already integrated some of what you found into this article, and I've added some descriptions of atrocities committed by UPA also. More is unnecessary and I'm sure most editors agree on that, although likely you would like to add hundreds of lines of more details and examples.Faustian (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please list which one More is unnecessary. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?Faustian (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please cite what More is unnecessaryJo0doe (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• DYK what Sluzhba Bezpeky committed their atrocities before NKVD appearence at Ukraine and never stop it before was exterminate by bite - so citation UPA responded to the Soviet methods by unleashing their own terror against Soviet activists, suspected collaborators and their families is Distractions as is - a part of Deception.Jo0doe (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See [2], page 102 and onward. Certainly the OUN killed people earlier (for example they hanged a woman suspected of giving information to the Gestapo) but the mass scale was in response ot Soviet tactics according to the sources, which are after all the basis of wikipedia articles.Faustian (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It' groundless personal opinion of author appeared in self published work (as far as such mentioned in russian version)

Burds' paper isn't self-published work.Faustian (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• see foreword from www.agentura.ru http://www.agentura.ru/text/biblio/Burds-Sovetskaia-Agentura.pdf - Jo0doe (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the book but to his paper [3]. The wikipedia article reference Burds' article, not the book. You know that. Please don't play games.Faustian (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• But I referring to the book - recent edition (2006) - I assume as most updated infoJo0doe (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• DYK about 1943 cleaning of weak elements (OUN(M) UNR), leftist (anyone who say good about Red Army), and anyone (especially thier families) who don't want to join UPA

Jo0doe (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting that anyone who didn't want to join UPA was killed by them? That's interesting - my grandfather refused and wasn't killed. Do you have any source for this claim of yours?Faustian (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Does he can prove it? Copy of SB document please. As regards my sources - fill free - to see my sources at refsJo0doe (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for the source and page number for your claim, and you have refused to provide it.Faustian (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You ask for sources - I've provide you. WP not based on "grandfather" info. If you don't want to read it - it's not a problem for WP.

However - Your turn with Krokhmalyuk - since I've provided page you are asked above about UPA dressed as UPA you meanJo0doe (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's response to ??? Or may be simply bad copy of Nazy way - exterminate opponents, "leftist", create fear and loyality through terror (usual way for banana-dictators)Jo0doe (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the usual way for any dictators - why do you leave out the Stalinist variety? UPA operated in a violent, demoralized and genocidal mileau and operated accordingly.Faustian (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So - that is the reason???, Or you mean what Stalinist variety exterminate whole families Poles and Jews and Ukrainians (becouse they Ukrainians?) beforeJo0doe (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo0 honestly, this above is pointless rant, I think Faustian stated quite clearly give a direct refrenced citation and your argument is true and you can input into the article. If you can't do that don't turn to demagogy and just let it go. Otherwise noone will take you serious with future arguments, and you will just isolate yourself. As before I am not trying to put you down, but to encourage you to act more professionaly, that's the only way you can achieve anything in such a scenario. --Kuban Cossack 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree - It's common way for editors which misread September as July etc. While the only way to deal with demagogy - it's use demagogy. So don't care about this chapter - see on unaddressed issues above - so while some editors "don't have time" to read few pages or fix deceptional refs but have time to spend time on nothing - as you can see aboveJo0doe (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• However - could you be so kind to explaine your recent action - i.e. 10:13, 15 May 2008 Kuban kazak (Talk | contribs) (84,064 bytes) (I am sorry Jo0 but even I will have to do this.) - did you see what you've replace well referenced citations and figures with unreferensed unreliable texts? So does it not contradict with your clearly give a direct refrenced citation and your argument is true and you can input into the article.? Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hey Jo

On you recent edit you placed

at 31 points within the article.

This I think IMHO is somewhat excessive, but let us look at some of the points that you placed this annotation.

In order to fight the mutual Soviet enemy in early 1944, UPA forces in Volyn and Lviv regions engaged in limited cooperation with the German Wehrmacht contingent upon the Germans leaving Ukrainian villagers and UPA undisturbed.

Attacks by the German air force and military forced Kovpak to break up his force into smaller units, whose remnants were subsequently harassed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains, and some destroyed altogether.

With the occupation of Ukraine by the Red Army,

Despite heavy casualties on both sides, the struggle was inconclusive. New large scale actions of UPA, especially in Ternopil Oblast, were launched in July-August 1944, when the Red Army advanced West.

Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466] </ref>

Further information: Sluzhba Bezbeky

Mass arrests of suspected UPA informants or family members were conducted; between February 1944 and May 1946 over 250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine .

The UPA proved to be especially adept at assassinating key Soviet administrative officials. According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing", presumed kidnapped, in Western Ukraine .

The first success of the Soviet authorities came in early 1946 in the Carpathians, which were blockaded from January 11 until April 10. The UPA operating there ceased to exist as a combat unit.

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.

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.

Over 130 periodicals appeared, 500 brochures, dozens of training manuals, memoirs, poetic collections, thousands of leaflets, appeals and responses were published.

From 1944-1953,the Soviets killed 153,000 and arrested 134,000 members of the UPA. 66,000 Families (204,000 people) were forcibly deported to Siberia and half a million people were subject to repressions. In the same period Polish authorities deported 450,000 people.

Many of the points where you have IMO indiscriminately added the annotation actually have the source where the information was obtained. Some of the information was even added by yourself from your own particular sources.

IMHO all you are trying to do is be a nuisance and hinder the work of editors ho are trying to make a positive contribution to this article. Bandurist (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for the source and page number for claims, and you have refused to provide it.

Actually it’s returning to this article particular story with “Y.Krockmalyuk” (i.e. provide not WP:V source nor WP:PSTS and to info which actually not existed in this source, and even source not published in 1973 nor in “press” as mentioned)

Once more – please find sources for sentences:

• Ukrainian military organization
• limited cooperation with the German Wehrmacht contingent upon the Germans leaving Ukrainian villagers and UPA undisturbed
• Attacks by the German air force and military forced Kovpak to break up his force into smaller units, whose remnants were subsequently harassed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains, and some destroyed altogether
• With the occupation of Ukraine by the Red Army
• Despite heavy casualties on both sides
• For more details on this topic, see Sluzhba Bezbeky. (why actually only at 1945-46 if first action of SB dated spring 1943 and last (at least sourced one)1948/1949)
• between February 1944 and May 1946 over 250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine (per WP:REDFLAG – because contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (p.439) – arrested between 1944 and 1956 – 103 866, from whom imprisoned – 87 756 and with Ivan Bilas. Repressive-punishment system in Ukraine. 1917-1953 Vol.2 Kyiv Lybid-Viysko Ukrainy, 1994)
• The UPA proved to be especially adept at assassinating key Soviet administrative officials (see above)
• According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing (see above)
• The first success of the Soviet authorities came in early 1946
• all referenced through Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007

please distinct OUN underground and UPA before end 1947 and use WP:RS as references (instead of numerous pamphlets published in Galizia from 1990 till present days)

• were forcibly deported to Siberia and half a million people were subject to repressions.
• And for rest not mentioned by you but listed

We should make from WP a reliable source for visitors instead of “Ukrainian Diaspora community online blog”. And may I ask you for a favor – please read first, before delete. Jo0doe (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked for citations, in many cases, right after the note where the information - even including the specific page number - is found. Basically you are just being disruptive, as usual.Faustian (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• let me remind a UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air force, - all above are same case - becouse most of such citations and even info does not exist in sources which listed. So actually it's called hoaxes and thus vandalismJo0doe (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Edits

The consensus here is to resolve differences by dealing with each change individually - Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Bobanni (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

However, Hoaxes should be removed immidiatelyJo0doe (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and persistent perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banningJo0doe (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However this claim is irrelevent here, as there are no hoaxes being perpetrated, much less persistently. However we do have a case of persistent disruptive editting.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe please review your edits before making massive changes. Note that many of your changes are unsourced negative comments and are unencyclopaedic. I understand that you are passionately very anti-UPA, but you need to put these passions to the side when making encyclopaedic edits. Also your edits can be quite "brutal" with little or no consideration regarding spelling and grammar - to the point of ruining whole areas that have been stylistically corrected and checked for spelling mistakes. Please be more considerate. Bandurist (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would like a point your attentio what my edits - well sourced - and if you unable to see that - pleace note it here before insering hoaxes like 250000 arrested, Ukrainian military organization, etc Jo0doe (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So please fix spelling and grammar - but note - it does not mean blanking and manipulation with sources like your recent edit at holodomorJo0doe (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronicle of disruptive edits

Similar to “Lithuanian names” from highly respected University, 500000 of deported from 1944 to 1949 from Subtelnyy, 100000 from Magochi, O14-USSR from Andrew Gregorovich's, 250000 arrested and maskirovka unit from Burds etc. So please kindly provide refs per WP:Redflag policy for unrefenced and do not manipulate data accordingly to your own opinion about mentioned in WP:PSTS

References are from Subtelny, Magosci, and Burds as you noted. Your claims that these scholars are flawed in some way is original research and we do not base edits on them.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• military organization –
• UPA's primary purpose was to protect the interests, of Ukrainians – OR (Also which interests and which Ukrainians?)
• Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 – sentence which has no sense. Moreover even less figures (60-80K) described as “fantastic’ by most recent research by Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Figures are referenced from scholars such as Subtleny or Magosci. Your claims that these scholars are flawed in some way, or that a source that you prefer is correct and they are wrong, constitute original research and we do not base edits on them.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Some UPA units were involved in… - word “Some” contradict with sources data

State explanation with reference (including page number so we don'thave to hunt through hundreds of pages on your behalf) for whateveer you are trying to say.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• among the people of Western Ukraine – OR

Your baseless claim.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In other regions of Ukraine, - OR and twist a mentioned in source

Another baseless claim.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, - twisting two source different data.

This has already been explained for you. It seems rather than continue the discussion, you repeat your already-discredited point.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat (with a minor change to what the article now states) from the previous discussion:

The above info is referenced in the article. Zhukov states [4] pg. 444

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

The book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences states [5] on pg. 172

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

The article states:

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

Please explain what in the article's statement, above, constitutes in your words "twisting two source different data." It seems clear that you are just interesting in creating problems rather than collaborating in good faith to make the article better.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA Formation – incorrect heading for 1941- 1942 period (UPA formed at spring-summer 1943)
• A captured German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) – All presented on IMT documents from countries has following coding –“ USA-290” “GB-321” “USSR-3” “RF-433” (mean country code and document number).
• Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivskiy and Roman Shukhevych … - manipulation with mentioned in source info.

Your claim.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn – contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

See above about your personal opinion regarding sources.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Polish-UPA war –
• early actions occurred in areas under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets rather than of the OUN – manipulation with mentioned in source conclusion - Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data

Referenced tot he source. Your personal interpretation is OR.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• whether these events were ever planned. – one opinion instead of community of historians – really interesting editing.
• unaffiliated with UPA – OR – someone still wants to whitewash and justify through OR

Referenced to Burds' work.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The UPA's activities can be seen as a reaction to past – look like whitewash and justify

This probably should be worded differently.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, UPA also killed ethnic Ukrainians, those who did not cooperate with them – which relation such data has to this chapter? – looks like someone use silly methods of deceive
• Speaking of the escalation in violence, a former soldier in a Polish nationalist partisan unit stated – WP is not collection of memoirs of unnamed soldiers.

But meanwhile you try to add hundreds of lines detailing UPA atrocities.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA first encountered them in late 1942 – does UPA exist in “late 1942”?
• Ukrainian partisan leader Sydir Kovpak etc – someone don’t like reliable comprehensive information – and prefer the deception like “remnants were subsequently harassed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains, and some destroyed altogether” originated from typhus-carrying lice source.

See above about sources.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• stated that in spring 1944 clashes… – manipulation with mentioned in source

Your personal opinion.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Despite heavy casualties on both sides, - does such statement has a source?

It's referenced.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• By the autumn of 1944, UPA forces enjoyed virtual freedom of movement over an area 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people and had established a shadow government – unreliable info – same as “Lithuanian names”.

Sources statement. Your personal opinion doesn't take precedence over a sources statement.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• They blockaded villages and roads and set forests on fire – - originated from typhus-carrying lice source.

See above. Your OR or personal opinion about a particular source doesn't determine its inclusion.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Soviet forces lost approximately 12,000 "killed or hanged", - contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

This is a referenced statement to historian Burds' article. Again, you have a pattern of selectively choosing sources based on your personal biases. Claiming that one source is good, another bad despite both being legit according to wikipedia rules is original research and has no place in wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Spring 1945- late 1946 For more details on this topic, see Sluzhba Bezbeky. – interesting but someone would like to SB atrocities exit only as “UPA responded to the Soviet methods by unleashing their own terror against “ ?

That's what the source says.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Areas of UPA activity were depopulated – “you have to have visual impact”? WP is not contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

See above about sources.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• 250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine - contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data and Bilas Vol 2

A referenced statement to a peer-reviewed article written by Harvard-affiliated historian. No OR please about which source is best.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• suspected of being UPA members underwent extensive torture; reports exist of some prisoners being burned alive etc – anti-soviet propaganda – what WP speak about propaganda?

A referenced statement to a peer-reviewed article written by Harvard-affiliated historian Jeffrey Burds. No OR please about which source is best. And no OR about Burds' methods. The man's article was good enough for you to use when he described UPA's atrocities. But when he describes those of the opposing side, suddently you don't like the sources he used. Second-guessing the methodology used by legitimate sources is OR, you knowFaustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA stopped killing the families of those it deemed collaborators by mid 1945 – so what about “seventeen women and one adolescent boy which were killed since November 1947” removed from article? contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

See above.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• UPA proved to be especially adept at assassinating key Soviet administrative officials – contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

See above about OR concerning which source is best. Moreover, you keep claiming contradiction but don't include a page number or link to those alleged contradictions. Given your established pattern of selectively quoting from sources (see archives for many many examples) we ought to see proof when you make your claims.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated - “maskirovka unit”?

Sourced statement.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Morale amongst the NKVD in Western Ukraine was particularly low. – yes. Because NKVD does not exist in December 1946

Sourced statement.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• personnel files reveal higher rates of transfer requests, alcoholism, and nervous breakdown – very impotent info for UPA article – WP:ISNOTSOAPBOX – does someone read this stuff?

Sourced info.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The first success of the Soviet authorities came in early 1946 – contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

A claim you make without providing a reference or page number. You expect us to believe you when you say that?Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• For this reason, by 1946, UPA was reduced to a core group of 5-10 thousand fighters – contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.

See above.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• image A fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947 – not with WP:PSTS policy
• Also the Soviets skillfully exploited Polish-Ukrainian ethnic hatred by using Poles as informants – for 1947-55 period – does anyone knew what Poles relocated by 1946?
• Although sporadic UPA activity continued until the mid 1950 – maybe OUN/UPA underground?
• made numerous violently antisemitic statements. – but removed sources confirm what proponents and members of OUN(B) joined the UPA in 1943-44 actively participated in Holocaust -

Which ones?Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In 1944, the OUN formally "rejected racial and ethnic exclusivity" – doctored in 1946 history

Your claim. What's written in the article is sources.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA, some Soviet propoganda works complained about Zionists "closely cooperating with" Bandera ringleaders – Disinformation as such

Your claim.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• During the following years the UPA was officially taboo by Soviet Union – OR

As far as Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements. Lebed left his papers to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. We should be very careful with “doctored history” originated from this kind of “WP:RS”

Your OR.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as WP visitors deserved a reliable information and reliable facts and reliable figures I expect your cooperation in fixing some minor grammar and style.Jo0doe (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as expected and similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army/Archive_01#Several_allegations_I.27d_like_to_get_answer_to – nothing changed from the times of UPA victory involved the defeat of two German divisions supported by artillery - unwillingness to provide a WP:RS source and/or to read 8-14 pages files and in same time twisting the mentioned in source. Like wording

• “UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia and Podolia)” cited as

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

So form the two different data (“in UPA represented all classes” and “UPA mainly formed from poor and moderate peasantry”) editors prefer to remain one (I assume preffered) – WP:UNDUE?

Again:

Zhukov states [6] pg. 444

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

The book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences states [7] on pg. 172

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

The article states:

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

Please explain what in the article's statement, above, constitutes in your words "twisting two source different data." It seems clear that you are just interesting in creating problems rather than collaborating in good faith to make the article better.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Strange interpretation of text

Please explain where you see the "strange interpretation of text" in the article's phrasing above.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategy of beginning of warfare was adopted at 3-d Conference of OUN which was held near Lviv 17-21 Febuary 1943. According to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

Into “Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivskiy and Roman Shukhevych…”

Actually in text appeared completely different name of person which proposed to commence an active against German – but this proposal was not adopted– and many times same approach appeared later in article – very similar to what happened in 1946: doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements and OUN's closest involvement with the Germans. It’s sad to note – but same doctoring conducted in other edited by me article – same approach when under of “spelling and typo” historical text and data doctored to illustrate a point Jo0doe (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've provided citations, links and page numbers in my discussion with you. Do the same, please, and we'll discuss this point.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly I can see only one doctored citation and lot of accusation in OR or claims. Links provided - WP does not require to provide page number for files (however I've did specially for you too many times - so I assume it's more then enough). However - you can put fact tag instead of simply delete without explanation . So could you repeat actually info regarded peasants of poor and moderate means ?Jo0doe (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• So – you repeatedly (four time) omit sentence which described UPA as mainly peasantry army:

В соцаяльному відношенні переважна більшість вояків УПА походила з селян при цьому їх основу складали середняцькі і бедняцькі елементи. It’s contradict with hoax about “20 – 25 % industrial working class and including students and urban professionals, constituted 15 per cent of the UPA’s force strength.” Just because wood-cutters are not belonged to industrial working class by the time. While origin of most (98%) “officer corps and military instructors” known and also their numbers – see p.439 - ~ 450 can not be cited as 15% of 30K even not all of them was “students and urban professionals”. Same happened with rest – So I kindly ask you to read few pages more precisely and try to comprehend whole book story. Jo0doe (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that my edit was correct. The translation of the above phrase is that "in terms of social status the large majority of UPA soldiers were from the peasantry among whom the majority was made up of middle and poor elements." There is no contradiction between that sentance and the what is written in the article, based on the reference in Zhukov that 60% of UPA were peasants, 25% workers (primarily from rural and lumber and food industries)and 15% from the intelligentsia. Faustian (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for translation. It's look similar to [8] - to past translation "Page 90 In a letter from August 29, 1941 froom Stetsko to Bandera, "Our cooperation with the Germans is dangerous and slippery. We can't practically carry out two politics: one together with Germans, while at the same time undertaking "our OUN work"." So - here no surprice. As regards to differnce between "predominatingly" and large - probably something can assist you to see the difference. While if you can't see the difference between 40% and 99% and between peasantry and workers intelligentsia - I can't help youJo0doe (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Make up of UPA section

This seems problematic. The information contained is dramatically different from other sources (only 46% of UPA were ethnic Ukrainians? Kuban cossack units within UPA?) The source is also not academic. The person making these claims, Віталій Манзуренко, has no record as a historian or academic when I google searched him. He appears on some pro-UPA websites but I haven't seen evidence of affiliation with any university or institute. I suggest we remove this section or try to corroborate those facts with other sources before including them. Faustian (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seems a bit far fetched. I asked my guys yesterday and they don;t believe it, but Radio Svoboda tends to be a credible source. Having said this, no dates are given for when the numbers were such and no statistics from where they got theses numbers have been given. It is however something to watch and keep an eye out on. Bandurist (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to credibility of Y.Tys-Krochmalyuk or Повстанець magazine ?Jo0doe (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Повстанець magazine (I'm not familiar with it), but Krokhmaliuk has been referenced by a numerous scholars. Faustian (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, any thoughts about keeping this section or not? I am inclined towards removing it, given that the infromation is quite different from everything else written (only 46% of UPA ethnic UKrainians and Kuban Cossack regiments) and that the source of the claim is not a known academic or historian. I don't think that it's worthy of the article.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It apparently comes from a conference that they had in Prague, so maybe more academic references are forthcoming. 46% seems too low. 86% Ok, 96% more likely, however that is what was posted. Maybe putting it on a separate area on the talk page until more references can be found to substantiate the claim?

Bandurist (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the section:

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army was a multi-ethnic Insurgent group. Only 46% of its members were ethnic Ukrainians. The rest was made up of members from other ethnic backgrounds. There were battalions of Azeibezhanis, Georgians and Armenians. There was a regiment of Kuban Cossacks and a Russian regiment. There ere many Jewish doctors who served the UPA often with their families hidden with the families of the soldiers.

46% does seem like a small number. Maybe it is a printing mistake? The fact that there were other ethnicities in the UPA is interesting. One would think that being associated with a nationalist organisation there would be no non-nationals in it, but apparently things were different. Bandurist (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

UPA seems to have picked up some non-Russian deserters from the Soviet forces.Faustian (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• So they go to fight-Germans and joined the partizans (as UPA demagogy promised and called themselves) - while it was very short time "cooperation" - becouse Germans apparently appeared Poleas see

Не будемо ідеалізувати Клячківського. Нещадні умови безкомпромісного протиборства зробили з Савура жорстокого та твердого керівника. Він відповідальний за ескалацію україно-польської «волинської різанини» 1943—1944 рр., за накази про знищення совєтських військовополонених, які втекли з німецького полону, за ініціювання фізичних «чисток» лав самої УПА — задля викорінення агентури противника та «непевних елементів». [9]Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So called “disruptive edits” or something which group of editors would like to hide

A group of editors which has similar origin (so-called Western Ukrainian Diaspora) continuously remove significant amount of information and twist other. An attempt to improve unreferenced claims with well referenced data refused by “disruptive edits” reverts. Here the few well referenced examples what group of editors don’t like to see at Wpedia:

• Whole section UPA military gendarmerie and security service (SB)

SB report for beginning of September 1943 mentioned ”during reporting period (1-10 Sept) 17 Poles families liquidated (58 persons)… Area in generally clean. There no pure-breed Poles. Issues of mixed families under resolving”

four of five of victims of rebel violence against suspected “collaborators” were ethnic Ukrainian women, especially young women allegedly suspected of sexually fraternizing with men of the Soviet occupation.

• Whole section UPA's History

Strategy of beginning of warfare was adopted at 3-d Conference of OUN which was held near Lviv 17-21 Febuary 1943. According to visions of Dmytro Klyachkivskyy and Roman Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

At spring 1945 OUN(b) issued an order to use wording “Ukrainian rebel” (Український повстанець in Ukrainian) naming for UPA members – instead “banderivets”.[29]

• Section Hostilities

However, Erich Koch in his November 1943 report and New Year 1944 speech mentioned what “nationalistic bands in forests does not have any major threat” for Germans [35].

Same information mentioned in top secret report as of January 21 1944 from famous soviet partisan commander General-Major Feodorov: “while acting from July 1943 till January 1944 in Volynskaya and Rovenskaya regions we did not seen any facts, were Ukrainian nationalists, excluding numerous brave reports in their own press, conduct any action against German occupants” [36]

In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants. [[37] 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. [[8]

• Section Collaboration

OUN under Bandera actively cooperate and acted in favors of Germans military and intelligence authorities before and few months after German invasion to Soviet Union in 1941 [[38]

• Section UPA's actions against Polish civilians and Polish Nazi-resistance formations

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 [45]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” [46]. The UPA was active in the ethnic cleansing of Poles from areas that it regarded as indigenously Ukrainian. The methods used included terrorist acts and mass-murder of Polish civilians. Massacres of Polish civilians began on a large scale in February-March 1943 in Volhynia region and since autumn 1943 spread over the Galicia and other territories of General Government. [3]

* subsection At controlled by German territories

Soviet partisans mentioned as the main threat at OUN (B) Congresses decisions since April, 1942. In 1942-beginning 1943 OUN (B) military formations or proponents killed parachuted individual Soviet commandos and betrayed Soviet partisans underground and small units to Germans. Since UPA creation OUN (B) military formations and first UPA detachments became more active in attacks on Soviet partisans units. After several unsuccessful actions against well armed and experiences Soviet partisans they adopt tactics to attack only small detachments of partisans and gain awesome success, - so soviet partisans lost ability to use small commando units against German communications and infrastructure in summer 1943-early 1944. During Ukrainian partisan leader Sydir Kovpak June-September raid deeply into German rear the OUN proponents (by the time there no UPA in Galicia) and with detachments of regiments of Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) used by German commands as scouts and target designators for air and artillery attacks; on returning small units of Kovpak’s also suffered losses from OUN/UPA ambushes.[53] Since late 1943 – early 1944 Soviet partisans reported what UPA units acts against them in cooperation with Germans units and prevent partisans actions against German military infrastructure .[54]

• section OUN/UPA's and Jews

However should be noted the OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “UPA Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” [24], moreover, in minutes of OUN (B) July 1941 Conference of OUN (B) clear visible a plan for partially Jewish population extermination and “ghettoizetion”. Captured SD and SIPO reports till end of October 1941, which were presented at Nurmberg_Trial noted about active role especially of OUN (B) groups in “communists and Jewish extermination” at Reichskommissariat Ukraine [85]. Also Ukrainian Auxiliary Police and some Schutzmannschaftsbataillons in 1941-42 also consist significant number of OUN (B) proponents.

Ukrainians fought in many German military and paramilitary forces such as the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police , Schutzmannschaftsbataillons and military formation under SS and SD and SIPO command. However should be noted what on initial stage of UPA formation (late March – beginning of April 1943), it was absorbed from 4 to 6 thousands of Ukrainian Auxiliary Police as from Reichskommissariat Ukraine, as from General Government. Also many high ranked UPA commanders (as also a Roman Shukhevych) served in under German command in same areas (Ukraine, Belarus) and in a same time were Holocaust actions taken place.

According to Canadian Ukrainian historian, by the time of UPA's formation over a year later, the OUN was already at war against Germany and its stance towards national minorities had changed. By 1944, it formally "rejected racial and ethnic exclusivity"[65] However, amongst list of “friendly nations”, adopted on III Extraordinary meeting of OUN at August 1943, with which UPA planned to fight “Moscow imperialism” still there no Jews nor Poles nor Russians. Even more, in late 1944 in UPA commanders reports were used Nazi’s propaganda words construction - “Jew-Communist-Bolsheviks” [90].

• Aftermath

During the period of Soviet Ukraine before 1970, UPA was mentioned by Soviet officials and historians as “German-Ukrainian nationalist bands”, since 1970 word of “UPA” removed from usage and replaced with words “banderovtsy” or “Ukrainian nationalists”. Facts which were provided listed OUN/UPA as Nazi puppet organization with similar methods and ideology.

The actions of editors is more then understandable – facts which provided dismissed the long lasted tiny community mythology based on doctored in 1946 documents from Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Also hardly imaging what such facts they can heard from Ukrainian weekend’s schools, Diaspora sponsored historians. Glory to A. Hitler, slaughtering and burning alive Polish children and woman as also a hanging non-loyal Ukrainians and their families – hardly belief what such can be assumed as actions of “brave freedom fighters and protectors of interests of Ukrainians”. While, luckily, it’s not community pedia as also we got a great WP:NPOV policy – which quite clear describe the place and usage of tiny minority visions. Thank you for your patience – I hope together we can make WP more reliable. Jo0doe (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These concerns have all been exhaustively addressed...unfortunately you've chosen to ignore the discussion and instead bring them up again as if no discussion occurred. Interested outside readers should check the archives.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I can see only exhausting claims for OR, Cherry picking and switching the topic to Subtelnyy, Magochi, Burds etc. But as far only one issue addressed – propaganda poster of UPA. That’s would be a full story – as for prominent example – vandalism on talk page – [10]Jo0doe (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you persistently engage in OR it makes sense that this will be discussed. And when I try to limit the discussion to sources by the works of scholars published in peer-reviewed journals or by universities, you refer that as "switching the topic to Subtelnyy, Magochi, Burds etc.". Sorry, there is nothing wrong is changing the focus from original research to legitmate sources for this article.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I assume editor known as Makivka and Black Forest inventor does not read WP:UNDUE and don’t seen
• A vital component: good research - 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.Jo0doe (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just empty attacks. It's quite significant that all you can do is come back to a couple of examples from years (?) ago when I mistakenly put the wrong source for information I provided, and then removed the info when I realized the mistake. That's all you have - 2 mistakes I made in hundreds if not thousands of edits. Maybe you'll find a couple more? Does that compare to your established pattern of consistently disruptive behavior? Faustian (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just undisputable facts. Just for example how fair specifically that editor can be found here [11] and note the version of article as of December 18, 2007 [12] (I can count only 6+ months from that time). And count through history of edits how many time hoaxes like “UPA was formed in late 1942”, “UPA fought German Wehrmacht”, “UPA popularity among the Ukrainian people”, “UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air force”, “On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna…”, “estimated 500,000 Ukrainians were sent to the North between 1946 and 1949”, “Ukrainian nationalists' main goal was not the extermination of Jews in itself” and awful hoax “UPA “appeal/ requirement poster”” (removed after dozens of notes) returned to WPedia. So inability to fair use the sources and tends to hide out, down sampled and/ or redistribute reliable facts with propaganda hoaxes clear noted trough history of editing. Jo0doe (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time going over all these points again, when the discussion is already in the archives, but will address one briefly. In the comments above, Jo0doecomplained about the removal of the following statement: "However, Erich Koch in his November 1943 report and New Year 1944 speech mentioned what “nationalistic bands in forests does not have any major threat” for Germans".

This was one quote from chapter 14 [13], from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was 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. But he just pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet.

• 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 [14] 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).

– and even such underlined in conclusion (distorted later by @Krocmalyuk -1973@ “publisher”). While editor forgot to mention what “November 1943 report and New Year 1944 speech” – was a summary report not for November 1943 but for whole past period from spring 1943 (when held previous meeting). Editor also forgot to mention what not only Germans doesn’t noted “the fierce battles” of post war OUN/UPA propaganda – same conclusions provided to readers Soviet Partisans and once again Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science at same page 180 as noted below – “the general strategy line of OUN/UPA directed to avoidance of active actions against German oppressors does not gave any gains on foreign political directions”. - So any fierce fightings - are hoaxes Jo0doe (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When this was described to the editor, he responded that as long as the quote was correct, context didn't matter, and then second-guessed the source's other sources (i.e., that the one quote he found in the source was worthy of inclusion, but the other info from the same source, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science, was not worthy of inclsuion into this article for various reasons - which is Jo0doe's original research).

• As expected Jo0doe (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically much of this editor's other edits show similar Cherry picking from sources. But this has all been discused multiple times and can be accessed in the archives.

And, much of the information that Jo0doe claims has been removed is actually in the article. For example, his "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" is included in the wikipedia article as "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." which is a more accurate description of the what the source actually says [15] -pg. 180. Faustian (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I really love this “twist and distort” – from actual wording of document. Similar to @June@ as @September@ and @statement@ as @General Instruction@. So it’s not surprise from editor which repeatedly hoaxed the en:WP since 2006 – see @Makivka and Black Forest@ and @divisions supported with artillery@ issues (as also the rest) earlier and in archiveJo0doe (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just your abusive claims about "twisting and distorting." See page 180 [16] and point out how that passage has been "twisted" or "distorted". Your abusive claim of me "hoaxing" is noted.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Simply mentioned the facts - see hoax and deception for more details - Just for instance - 1955 for UPA and 100000 for it size - both are hoaxes (last one even mentioned in History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science. So actually - at page 180 there no @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.@ - Thus it's named hoax - e.g. claim for information which actually does not exist in mentioned page of sourceJo0doe (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - it's on page 179, in the same passage. The exact translation is "the strategy of the two-fron struggle of OUN-UPA was in many ways similar to the political line taken from 1941-1943 by the leader of Serb nationalists general Draža Mihailović. He tried to minimize his conflicts with the Germans and Italians in order to conserve his forces for the conflicts against the Croats and Tito's partisans. An analogous position was also adopted by Mao Tse Tung, who avoided conflicts with the Japanese in order to marshall his resources for the struggle against the nationalists." So when I wrote pg. 180 instead of 179 this to you is a "hoax." As for the 100,000 in UPA claim, that's referenced to Magosci. Another "hoax", right?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hoax, in that what you omit actually stated on page 180 (as also about 100000). I also assume “the strategy of the two-front struggle of OUN-UPA similarity“ as hoax or personal opinion of author which – contradict with majority historians works about chetniks and especially Chinese. Moreover the facts mentioned in other chapters same works before and after this allegedly claim clearly contradict with version about “similarity” with other Nazi resistance groups in Europe. None of them:
• 1) has “similar with us (Nazi) targets – namely Poles and Jews”
• 2) Collaborate with Nazis in 1941-1942 and late 1943-early 1945
• 3) conducting large scale ethnical cleaning
• 4) so called “resistance” limited only to 3-4 months and was not notable by party against which such “resistance” were conducted ( I able to find about actions against civil administration and local police – which – once again – constituted from Poles or political opponents (OUN(m) UNR etc).

As I expect claim for OR I respond – I simple act inline with WP policy - A vital component: good research - Read more at WP:NPOV. Please count how many time since November 2007 you’ve hoaxing en:WP by reinstating hoaxes mentioned here [[17]]. And even now such hoaxing continued. I hope you can limit your effort to other non-scientifically based articles (as history is a science) before you’ll have more time to read fairly more majority scholar works about WWII and avoid usage en:WP as soapbox for nationalistic movements like OUN(b). Jo0doe (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP policy is quite clear in that we base edits on secondary sources not our personal opinions and research, even if we personally feel that our research is as you claim "good research." So your personal view about what was written in the document published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is, like most of your edits, original reearch. The rest of your comments are just personal abuse, as usual.Faustian (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the offensive entry by JoeDoe as I promised to him earlier. I am done moderating his posts. Takes too much of my time. Joe is free to repost his entry in a civil form. --Irpen 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but accusing someone of hoaxing because he stated that something was said on page 180 instead of 179 of the same source is abusive.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• You mean this hoax -

"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." which is a more accurate description of the what the source actually says [18] -pg. 180. Faustian (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why deleted this ?

In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants. [Jo0doe (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be interesting

Hey Jo0 have read [19]. --Kuban Cossack 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank's but I 've just finish the reading of International Military Tribunal documents - there lot of plenty info directly from masters (Germans) about

prostitutes (OUN(b) in general) - presented as USA and GB exibits Jo0doe (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Great - publish the results of your searching through the archives in a peer-reviewed journal or university publication and we'll include them in the article, per wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the offensive entry by JoeDoe as I promised to him earlier. I am done moderating his posts. Takes too much of my time. Joe is free to repost his entry in a civil form. --Irpen 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to resort to abuse. Wikipedia policy lists adminstrative documents (among other materials) as a primary source. Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

This policy is very important, because it prevents people with non-nuetral agendas who have access to primary sources from turning wikipedia pages into personal research projects or vehicles for the pursuit of personal agendas. So, until your collection of facts taken from your personal readings through the archives are published in a peer-reviewed journal or by university press, they don't belong in the article. Good day.Faustian (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:UNDUE = 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.Jo0doe (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you consign the majority of Western and post-Soviet Ukrainian scholarship to the category "minority view."Faustian (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Names pleaseJo0doe (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes remain hoaxes and those which reinstate them hoaxing the WPedia

List of hoaxes

• a b c d Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, (page 242).

book mentioned does not exist

The publisher's name was wrong, that is all.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As also a year of issue and actually information which referenced through it.

Exactly as

• A hoax is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when in fact it is not; or that something is true, when in fact it is false.

I removed another offensive post by JoeDoe as I warned him previously. --Irpen 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that the book does, indeed, exist.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Book @Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press@ - Exist? Realy?Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We can change the incorrect publisher info.Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not forgot a year also - and again - all of info apperared (page 242).

• UPA- was a Ukrainian military organization :

UPA was a military formation of OUN(b)

The contradiction?Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can’t see the difference – I can’t help you. Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state there was a difference. I asked if there was a contradiction (i.e., if the present version is wrong).Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

contradiction in difference between @Ukrainian military organization@ and @military formation of OUN(b)@Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So a military formation of OUN (b) cannot also be a Ukrainian military organization according to you?Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Accoriding to WP:RS it was military formation of OUN (b) Jo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The UPA's primary purpose was to protect the interests[2], of the Ukrainian population

hoax referenced through non-scholar pamphlet published by private institution

Would "stated" be better?Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

did you see @non-scholar pamphlet published by private institution@ Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This passage probably needs a reference tag to a better source than the pamphlet. Whoever added the passage (or anyone else) should be given time to provide it before the info's removal. Just referring to it as a "hoax" before the reference is provided isn't constructive.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually page 180 explain about why claim for primary purpose was to protect the interests is hoaxJo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the quote where this is stated on page 180. Because it's not there - that is your creative interpretation as usual.Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read 2 last para about OUn UPA strategy (i.e.primary purpose ) Jo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• the UPA cooperated both with Soviet partisan forces

Hoax as for UPA/OUN(b) but why missed (removed) cooperation with SS and SD?

These claims (including cooperation with partisan forces) ought to be referenced.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read http:/.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm or if you unable to do so – at least look at my recent @disruptive” edit were you can find pages number for SS and SD Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Any new?

• In order to differentiate itself from Soviet "Partisans" (a term commonly used by communist underground forces) the members UPA tended to use the Ukrainian term "Povstantsi" (insurgents).

by the time when UPA adopted "Povstantsi" there no Soviet "Partisans"

The original claim as well as your counterclaim ought to be referenced.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

as above – I assume you not oppose to the generally acknowledged fact what were no Soviet "Partisans" in spring 1945 at Ukraine Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I would like references to info (particularly the former).Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards p"Povstantsi" - look at deleted by you @UPA's History@ section - you can find an answer and page numberJo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That section [20]states "since April 1943 as official name for OUN-SD by decree D.Klyachkivskyy of was adopted UPA ". So according to you there were no partisns in Ukraine in April 1943?Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you return to issue with hoax named above ~ i.e. members UPA tended to use the Ukrainian term "Povstantsi"Jo0doe (talk)-

So where is the hoax?Faustian (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to read deleted by you section in full (or at least from summer 1943 till summer 1945) Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• UPA remained active and continued open battles against Poland until 1947 and the Soviet Union until the 1949.

guerrilla tactics does not include “open battles”

That's your opinion.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So please read more about guerrilla tactics Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify - you did not offer proof that UPA guerillas never engaged in open battles, only your opinion.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Read more carefully http:/.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - and you can find what it's not @only myopinion@.Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[[

Page numbers, please.Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So please find me at refs for hoax - namelly [open battles against Poland until 1947 and the Soviet Union until the 1949] first - and please do not ask me to put page number per every words. Hints - choose appropiate section of work and read it more carefully - it's actually 10-20 pages of textJo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase about open battles needs to be referenced, or otherwise it should be changed. OTOH your claim should also be referenced and other editors shouldn't be expected to hunt through 10-20 pages of text every time you claim something in order to verify it.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

May be not included - as WP asks?Please mind – my claim does not appeared in the article. I assume your wish what only I must references on every words from 10 pages file –since I’ve not trace similar effort to edits of others editors – I assume such as personal attack. Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Active till 1955

hoax – disbanded in 1949 see as for instance here Ukrainian Insurgent Army Encyclopedia of Ukraine] and here [21]

This has already been discussed. UPA was indeed officially disbanded in 1949, although many of its units fought on until 1955. Vasyl Kuk has been described as UPA's last leader and he did not assume command of the military formation until 1950. For example, the BBC [22] stated that he commanded UPA from 1950 until 1954. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine entry on Kuk [23] also desscribes him UPA's leader: "When Roman Shukhevych was killed in 1950, Kuk (as Yurii Lemish) assumed his positions as leader of the OUN in Ukraine and (as Col Vasyl Koval) commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)." Much of the articvle itself contains information about battles and events that occurred post-1949 [24]. The infobox represents a simple summary, so it was felt that in the interests of clarity it would be better to have an end date of 1955 rather than 1949. There was a discussion about this, but rather than continue it you chose to simply revert the article to the version you presonally preferred.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I can't see any @discussed@ with results for conclution. But It’s great to note what you’ve agree with [25] .

But DYK about OUN underground – which actually able to conduct some action (but I can’t see battles … that occurred post-1949) – but did you see the difference - @OUN underground@ and @UPA@ - so note the article name – UPA. It’s very interesting to note your approach to WP editing - @ interests of clarity it would be better to have an end date of 1955 rather than 1949@. Oh - @ version you presonally preferred@ - you assume as author of [26] – no thanks it`s not me. Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• @Kuk (as Yurii Lemish) assumed his positions as leader of the OUN in Ukraine and (as Col Vasyl Koval) commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)." – It’s absolutely true – but he possess this post because he get a highest official at UHVR at Ukraine (read more about UHVR) – so it’s for instance the same story as Yuschenko is commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Army – because it’s mentioned in law about President of Ukraine – same story with Kuk and Shukhevych – they was 1) highest officials at UHVR at Ukraine 2)a leaders of the OUN in Ukraine 3) commander-in-chiefs of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army disbanded in 1949 – because by the time of 1949 it was all-in-one and self-inclusive post. Is it clear for your? Jo0doe (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great - and how does the above info demonstrate that 1955 is wrong for the infobox? There were OUN guerillas led by the commander of UPA. The details above would be good for the body of the article, but the infobox should have the simplified version.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again you contradict with yourself - you agree what UPA was indeed officially disbanded in 1949 and article about UPA but not OUN undeground but once again you have @interests of clarity it would be better to have an end date of 1955 rather than 1949@ - Who's @interests@?Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interests are irrelevent (is 1949 vs. 1955 supposed to represent someone's interests?) The article should be coherent. If Kuk is listed as UPA's last commander and if the article contains information about fighting into the 1950's it makes sense for the infobox and lead to use the latter date rather than 1949. How about if the infobox states "1943-1949 (offical), with fighting until 1955 or something similar?

Actully it's your words. Plase find refs for specifically @UPA fighting until 1955@. So, you can remove post 1949 info to OUN undeground to be inline with facts Jo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Kuk fighting until 1954? Were fighters under his command fighting until 1954?Faustian (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this article about Kuk fighting’s? Once again - Hints - choose appropriate section of work history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm and read it more carefully - it's actually 10-20 pages of text – as for instance here you need section @Nationalist Underground – 1949-1956@ (strange I can’t find any notes about @UPA fighting (nor UPA in general) until 1955@ in this chapter). Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strength - Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000

Hoax – never was not 100,000 nor 80000 nor 60000 – info about hundreds thousands as hoax mentioned at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - namely Треба відкинути фантастичні цифри про чисельність повстанської армії – so I assume some of editors assumed WP as a trashbeen for propaganda trash?Jo0doe (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The 100,000 was cited from Magocsi. Did your source mention specifically that 100,000 was a "fantastic number" and/or that Magosci was engaging in fantasy? Or was that your personal interpretation of what the passage you quoted above meant. Because the passage that you included above certainly did not include the 100,000 as being fantastic. Faustian (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Magocsi work was specially designated to UPA (as for instance Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)? DYK what Germans figures which mentioned as fantastical is 60-80K. So if 60-80K it’s fantasy – because @too much for resources at OUN possession@ - while 100K it’s not – because it @cited from Magocsi @which not targeted specifically UPA. So, if we accepting this way – we should update WP Article about WARSAW GHETTO with story about @probably Lithuanians, to judge by their names@ originated from Yale [27]. I highly recommend to read more precisely http:/.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm- to note the many times repeated 25-30K. Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the source you quoted from did not specifically label the figure of 100,000 as fantastic nor Magosci's work as fantastical. Thanks for confirming that your quote of "info about hundreds thousands as hoax mentioned at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - namely Треба відкинути фантастичні цифри про чисельність повстанської армії" was a misrepresentation of what was actually written.

Moreover, you are personally rating which source is more credible, which is original research. The wikipedia article correctly provides various estimates from various sources, all of which meet wikipedia standards. One of those estimates is 100,000. We do not exclude a source's estimates because it contradicts that of another source that for whatever reason you decide is a better source.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SEE WP:REDFLAG policy about exceptional claim. It's not only contradict - it's clearly conclude what even much less figures is fantasy Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So accordingly to your logic wording what 60K and 80 K is fantasy is @misrepresentation of what was actually written@? As far as you can see we can spoke about 100,000 figures but not @nor Magosci's work as fantastical@Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the paragraph where it states that 60k or 80k is a fantasy. You have not done so. The passage that you pasted did not include any figures. Let me remind you of what you actually wrote: "info about hundreds thousands as hoax mentioned at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - namely Треба відкинути фантастичні цифри про чисельність повстанської армії".Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please find german figures for UPA in late 1944 (Dr.Gebbels Authority informational pamphlet about UPA) - pitty what you've not read Kosyk workJo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Magosci is enough. He states 100,000, so 100,000 belongs (along other estimates) in the article. Neither I nor you determine which source is bette than another by using original research of other sources. Removal of that estimate cited by Magosci is simply blanking.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG policy not - becouse it contradict with http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm conclusion about UPA figures Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• However Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine CONCLUSION describe what any figures above 25-30K for UPA at maximum stench is a fantasy. Is it enough for WP? Jo0doe (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a conclusion – none of hoaxes were addressed - only empty words, words, words– as in many time in the pastJo0doe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you continue to refuse constructive dialogue.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

can't detect any @constructive dialogue@ - only play with words and refusal to admit awfull facts (like 60K less then 100K)Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider any facts to be "awful." But then again, I'm not engaged in POV-pushing.Faustian (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pitty what you don't agree what 60K less then 100K. So what about 500000 deported and 250000 arrested?Jo0doe (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have problems with those referenced figures as well? Not surprising.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not me – see WP:SYN –

officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people [12] [77] to 500,000 you’ve: 1) added info what exact figures are estimated 2) you’ve meshed different figures for different period in one sentence – i.e. exact figures for 1944 1952 3) You included Subtelnyy allegedly claim for 1944-1948 (am I correct interpret phrase about @between 1944 and 1949@)) 500000 as @officially Soviet archives state@. I assume WP is not expect to include propagandistic estimation if available exact figures from WP:RS. As regards Burds – you extract 250000 from clear POV-propaganda pushing (ask third party for opinion about грандиозный размах той бойни at p.54 which underlined that figures). And why you omit data from history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm were numbers is more then twice less for 8 time more period (1,5 vs 11 years)Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New source for UPA and Jews section

• http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-05-01
• http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-01-01

Also would good to note photos 17877 and 05273 from here [28] - namelly

Ukrainian SS personnel and their German officers in Plaszow.

Naked Jewish women, some of whom are holding infants, wait in a line before their execution by Ukrainian auxilliary police.

It's about Subtelnyy claims - currently appeared at articleJo0doe (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

hoax -160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people

Would be intresting to note anothe @Lithuanian name@ issue from western resercher -

Interesting statistics - На 15 вересня 1942 р. в дистрикті Галичина проживало 14 тис. 366 рейхсдойчів, 29 тис. 76 фольксдойчів, 3 млн. 247 тис. 353 українці, 955 тис. 821 поляк, 278 тис. 132 євреї, 5 тис. 575 осіб інших національностей. Або разом 4 млн. 528 тис. 323 особи.64

1 березня 1943 р. було проведено перепис населення.65 Згідно з даними, оприлюдненими на сторінках східногалицької преси статистичним урядом, на території Генерального Губернаторства проживало 14 млн. 853 тис. 798 мешканців, у тому числі 7 млн. 85 тис. 690 чол. та 7 млн. 758 тис. 108 жінок. Станом на 1 вересня 1943 р. площа Генерального Губернаторства становила 145 тис. 180 кв. км. Тут знаходилося 7 головних міст, 206 міст та 17 тис. 365 сіл. Найбільшим за площею був дистрикт Галичина, що обіймав площу 47 тис. кв. км, далі йшли Краків — 29 тис. 921 кв. км, Люблін — 26 тис. 560 кв. км, Радом — 24 тис. 431 кв. км, Варшава — 17 тис. 168 кв. км. Відповідно в дистрикті Галичина проживало 4 млн. 200 тис. 760 чол., у дистрикті Краків — 3 млн. 482 тис. 124 чол., у дистрикті Радом — 2 млн. 396 тис. 968 чол., у дистрикті Люблін — 2 млн. 74 тис. 543 чол. Jo0doe (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What you call a "hoax" was taken from: [29] 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. Again, wikipedia is not based on original research such as personal reading or misreading, or interpretation or misinterpretation, of various statistics.Faustian (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP is deserve reliable data - may I remind you a @Lithuanian name@ issue. Again this data originated from Krochmalyick tiphus carring lice source. But geography and demography is widelly available reliable data. I assume you against the mentioned above info - i.e. дистрикт Галичина, що обіймав площу 47 тис. кв. км дистрикті Галичина проживало 4 млн. 200 тис. 760 чол., Jo0doe (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• DYK about total area of Ukraine?Jo0doe (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• DYK what The length of Earth's equator is about 40,075.0 km? Could you please provide other then @Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3,@

data for this exceptional claim - per WP:REDFLAG policy Jo0doe (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your ongoing abusiveness is noted. I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to "Lithuianian names" all the time. Where the data originated is irrelevent. The source that is referenced meets wikipedia standards. Second-guessing the author's ability to judge the value of the bits of info he used for his article is original research. It seems to me that some of the information included in Krokhmaliuk's work (i.e., the typhus-carrying lice incident) is not credible while other information is credible. Determining what is or is not credible in his book is not our job (original research, you know). Whatever was taken from his book and used by other authors (Zhukov, Burds, Magosci, etc.) certainly belongs here. When I originally used Krokhmaliuk's work I was conservative and careful to limit it to elaborations of incidents that had already been described by other authors (i.e., Magosci desribed pitched battles for Carpathian passes between UPA and Germans, he used Korkhmaliuk as a reference, so I included more details about those particular incidents from K.'s book).

Also, You keep mentioning Galicia's population and size - is your original research the claim that UPA had freedom of movement only in Galicia? Remind where Vatutin was ambushed and killed. You keep describing the claim about UPA's freedom of being being "exceptional." any references to support that, or is it just your opinion?

• I don't claim about UPA's freedom - note section nameJo0doe (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The heading name you chose "hoax -160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people " seems to be a reference from a statement in the article - "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" which was taken from Zhukov's article [30]( 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). If you don't dispute this statement's inclusion in this wikipedia page than what is your point?

Anyways, your comments above sadly fit the pattern of abuse and original research.Faustian (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• What in my comment "fit the pattern of abuse and original research" - please list at leas one. have no idea what - so please remember this one [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army/Archive_02#THE_WARSAW_GHETTO_IS_NO_MORE] our conversation. I really don't mind why you are so like to use word CLAIM and ORIGINAL RECEARCH ? How did you decide what while other information is credible - based on ??? While later - Determining what is or is not credible in his book is not our job - ??? I can't trace sence in your sentences - you put self contradicting phraces out of discussion topic. Are you really belief what original research is possible in present demografy and geography?Jo0doe (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Any analysis of data not referenced to a source is original research. Remember WP:SYN: "Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. 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...Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." I'm not sure where you are going with your demographic and geographic data, but whatever point you are trying to make is clearly original research. The same applies for your Lithuanian names comments. So you found an inaccuracy at a Yale website. Therefore, are you trying to say that this proves that Yale researchers aren't credible and thus that other Western sources aren't credible too? That's original research. As for your abuse, your sarcastic comments about knowing Ukraine's size etc. fit.Faustian (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don’t mind why you assume my comments about Ukraine's size etc is sarcastic – simply I draw your attention to exceptional claim – i.g. size as 4 times of Earth's equator and population as almost as in General Governance and more then 1/3 of whole Ukrainian population as of 1/1/45 and 1/3 of present Ukraine Size (which bigger then was in autumn 1944. So does the Zhukov claims (with questionable origin) match WP:REDFLAG policy (did you understand what I’ve spoken about?) Could you provide more details about Zhukov – is he notable historians and widely knows by majority historians community? Is he published many historians works about article topic? (or it’s a Google search only?)

You should review the redflag policy:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

If you claim that the info from Zhukov meets those criteria you should prove it. Your opinion doesn't count here.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please note at least one instance in article were “analysis of data not referenced to a source” and “when an editor comes to a conclusion”?

When you conclude that there's something wrong with the information cited from Zhukov based on your analysis of data not referenced to a source. The source didn't discuss UPA, did it? That was your analysis.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• You mistakenly mismatch original research in article with good research (see WP:NPOV for more) . Could you please list were specifically in article you can able to detect my Original Research.Jo0doe (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

However why you omit?

• Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly. Please – WP:HONEST and see Wikipedia:NOR

Your abusive implication that I am dishonest is noted.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cite were I made abusive implication that I am dishonest May I remind your This speaks badly for your overall credibility.Faustian (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Jo0doe (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Absolutely.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Jo0doe (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you once again claim what if I noted many times Kyiv has more population then Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora is my OR and what Zhukov, Burds, Magosci are not widelly known and recognized historians in Ukrainian community Jo0doe (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:RSUE. This this is the English-language wikipedia reputable scholars from the English speaking world have high priority. Because Kiev has more Ukrainians than Canada does not meet that the work of scholars from Canada is worth "less" than the work of scholars in Kiev. Indeed, assuming the quality of the work is comparable, the English-language material is preferable to that in other languages per wikipedia policy WP:RSUE. Here is Jeffrey Burds' CV: [31]. If you claim what he writes is fringe or whatever, that's a reflection on your credibility more than that of Burds.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, at least you’ve agreed what Subtelny, Magochi etc represent tiny minority views – and thus should not be included in WP in such extent. While historical quality of only one from mentioned above persons at Ukrainian community of historians – Subtelny are not recognized as highly reliable works – as for rest – they are almost unknown. As regards Burds – his no-neutrality is notable from foreword to his “agentura” and numerous clear propagandistic claims over such work – see WP:NPOV for details why some POV of author must not be included in WP. Jo0doe (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX! HOAX!

The term "Hoax" is being really misused in this discussion! Nothing in this article remotely resembles a hoax. So to advance this discussion lets stop using that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)

• The whole argument about kilometers is just a misunderstanding between linear kilometers (for distance) and square kilometers for area. NO HOAX HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)
  • Not only, while linear kilometers (for distance) and square kilometers for area was noted to editor which include this hoax.

No - you wrote "simply I draw your attention to exceptional claim – i.g. size as 4 times of Earth's equator and population as almost as in General Governance and more then 1/3 of whole Ukrainian population as of 1/1/45 and 1/3 of present Ukraine Size ".Faustian (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

*It’s not true – please check talk archive [32]Jo0doe (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more – claim is exceptional (area more then twice more then Western Ukrainians regions area, more then whole GG area , population – 4,5 more then DG in 1943 (before final solution of Jew question, mass retreat of collaborators, Poles exile from UPA ethnical cleaning etc.)Jo0doe (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Main issue in figures claimed which actually appeared only in one unknown as well recognized historian. Figures –as you note is by more then площа Генерального Губернаторства становила 145 тис. 180 кв. км. and population more then 1/3 of whole Ukrainian SRR population as of 1/1/45. If editor can be able to provide any well recognized historian statement about 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people instead of Western Ukraine popularity – it will not be hoax – untill – it’s hoax. ( not Bobanni - ?????)

Faustian – could you assist with square kilometers for area of the Western Ukraine regions info?Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Vatutin ambushed and killed in Western Ukraine? We have a source from a peer-reviewed journal that claims that UPA enjoyed freedom of movement over 1/3 or so of Ukraine's territory. Do you have a contrary information from another source? Or are we expected to jump through hoops for you because you are displeased with a fact from a peer-reviewed source.Faustian (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When Vatutin ambushed and killed ? Could you provide info what Zhukov is notable and reputable historians and he has a notable amount of historical works about Ukraine and specially about UPA. Or appeared in article is his only work about UPA?Jo0doe (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I already provided you with a source showing that UPA enjoyed freedom of movement over approximately 1/3 of Ukraine's territory. Zhukov's article is enough, since it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If you have contrary info, please provide it. Just because you personally don't like what a source says doesn't mean we have to rsearch the author's biography.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Using the term “Military formation” to describe a military organization is an archaic term not in general use. Unfortunately many translators from Russian or Ukrainian to English still use this archaic form. NO HOAX HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)
  • Actually “military formation” is from Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Partisans" vs "Povstantsi" this is just a discussion of the source of one word. NO HOAX HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)
  • If order to use word Povstantsy instead Banderivtsi submitted in Spring 1945 – which soviet partisans editor inserted that certainly hoax wording mentioned?Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image A fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947 is used by Russian Wikipedia. Jo0Doe is an active editor there yet he has not challenged it there. The source of the photos is from Wiki-Commons with that caption. It originated with Ukrainian Wikipedia. NO HOAX HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)

• Wiki-commons is not reliable source itself (especially at Ukrainian Wikipedia) – still it has no origin no author no credible source so I assume this as work of someone from Ukrainian Wikipedia – at least you’ve able to provide credible source about @fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947@ imageJo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied from archive2

------------------------------------------------------------------

Please U have the source under the link

http://www.cdvr.org.ua/army.php?roz=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.175.98.34 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------------ Bobanni (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly to WP RS requirements – reliable sources for history data at Ukraine are follows

www.history.org.ua

www.archives.org.ua

Legal person which appeared in Ukrainian business register 1.6 years ago can not gain reputation in history matters for such short time. While there a plenty of UPA photos from RS – but most of them are copyrighted – why not ask for them?Jo0doe (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army … formed … in 1941.

This hoax now appeared at first sentence of en:WP article. I’ve fix it (and many others) – as hoaxes [33] but that and rest hoaxes was reinstated [34] – as disruptive edits. I’ve missed some major changes in WP policy? Editors which revert hoaxes now warmed blocking and protect hoaxes for 20 days??? Dear Faustian, could you please explain why you treat

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army ([Українська Повстанська Армія, Ukrayins’ka Povstans’ka Armiya, UPA] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) was a Ukrainian military formation formed at spring-summer 1943 initially in Volhynia (located in north-western Ukraine). Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As descriptive edits?

If you choose to embed this info into your massive disruptive edit it will be reverted along with the rest. If you make small changes limited to one point at a time we can discuss and edit collaboratively. It is not our responsibility to sort through your massive edits, looking for a few good points among the OR etc. Make your changes a little bit at a time, please.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only this – you’ve deleted a lot of well referenced info and replace it with non referenced hoax and OR. It’s your sole decision about allegedly claims my edits as disruptive edit – you still refuse to list at least one instance of my OR in article. As far as I see here edit a group of Faustians - It is not our responsibility to sort through your massive edits. – Could you provide me a WP:policy on limitation amount of editing? Jo0doe (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2006 hoax , which still appeared at Article

Despite my numerous attempts to remove it – all my attempt was blocking. A story about

• Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press (book which does not exist – namely: such book was never printed in Vantage Press in 1973)

You conceded that the book exists - only the publisher info is wrong and the year of publication is off by one year. This will be changed.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So – you agree what book you are mentioned (Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press ) as highly graded by Subtelnyy and Magoci in fact does not exist?Jo0doe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the existing book's info was incorrect. That you take this to mean that the book itself does not exist speaks to your "objective" approach to information.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you still affirm what book Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press exist?Jo0doe (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

appeared WP under “major changes” spice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army&diff=53744081&oldid=53484979 in 2006. And despite the numerous concerns of reliability of data by other editors (see Archive talk) one editor still oppose to excluding it despite. Even more by end of January 2008 [35] article enriched with ^ Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, p. 242. and ^ a b c d e Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, (page # missing). So the questions are

• from were are originated info which was referenced through at time of including in the WP
• Why, despite the concerns of other editors, no attempts was made by editor to check a) reliability of book b) pages number on which information was concerned appeared c) does the book exist
• Why this hoax was used as a source repeatedly (6 times even by end of January 2008)Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after hundreds if not thousands of edits I made a mistake. Wrong page number and publisher is not a hoax. You are being abusive.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You add a reference for information concerned by using book which does not exist. Book is hoax, and information concerned which you are referenced through it are hoax. This is clearly editting in bad faith. Jo0doe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse noted.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing refuse to agreed with clearly provided facts notedJo0doe (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the insulting nature of referring to a mistake as a hoax. Moreover, you have been asked several times to make your edits one piece at a time. It's unfortunate that rather than fix this in one edit you've chosen to bury it in a massive edit and then devote much time and space complaining about it. Shouldn't we be focussed on making this article better?Faustian (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind your words about hoax as real [36]

• Those details were taken from a book by Krokhmaliuk about UPA operations that was cited in Subtelny as a source for further readings. Faustian 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[37]

• With respect to Krokhmaluk, he is used as a source by both Subtelny and Magosci, each of whom recommends this book as a source for further reading. Any information used from Krokhaliuk was merely further elaboration of information referenced from either Magosci or Subtleny. Faustian (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[38]

• Added.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[39]

• I only used two specific episodes from his book because they were elaborations of what Magosci and Subtelny had written Faustian (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[40]

• I've also unhid information that you hid, just because you claim that you haven't found the page numbers in the book.Faustian (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• That is your claim. I suggest you look again. If I had the book now I would give you page numbers. But you will have to wait a few hours.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, actually, you refuse to provide me an answers on 2 questions – namely 1)were you got this info?

Krokhmaliuk's book.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press?Jo0doe (talk)

2) why you referenced information through this hoax despite the other editors concerns about reliability of information referenced through it.

Your or others' opinions about a particular source are OR and don't count. I cited Krokhmaliuk only in the instances where his words were elaborations of what was included in the works of Subtelny and Magosci. 'You added all sorts of other info from Krokhmaliuk's work into the article in an atempt to discredit him. This is clearly editting in bad faith. Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of the majority of historians community is not OR – you may be not know.

Citation please that this is the opinion ofmajority of historians. No OR please.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If they directed in specific direction while somewhere sometimes tiny extremist community mentioned other – see WP policy. In order to make clear my sentence – If in works about Earth what it is sphere– it does not mean what if someone claim what it’s cube there should be mentioned what it was not cube. Similar story here – if majority of historians community conclude what UPA (not UPACKB, UNS OUN(B) underground together) can have 30K at maximum power – it’s mean what it can’t have 100000 (however why you repeatedly omit the p.173 were appeared explanation for propagandistic 100K claim?)Jo0doe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide citation for your continued claims about "majority of historians."Faustian (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Majority of historians" is just your baseless claim. We have references for higher figures.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see only one source and only one editor who push information which clearly mislead the visitors 15K-100K. Can’t see we. Ongoing refuse to agreed with clearly provided facts noted Jo0doe (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why you’ve not used Subtelny and Magosci and prefer Krokhmaluk, Y (1973)? Does in it work appeared

• UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions and rest hoaxes?

I added all sorts of other info from accordingly to WP:Policy – to avoid selective citation from source which actually (as far as you noted me many time) Lie by omission. WP:visitors deserve facts based on which they can be able to form own opinions. What about WP:SYN as your elaborationsJo0doe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

However it’s clear OR in article and even hoax insertion in WP. Same issue with other sources – could you please be so kind to provide me a name of chapters (3 is enough) from Armstrong book, as also names of other articles published – because I concerned what you actually insert this info from this sources (i.e. existance of data appeared in the article)Jo0doe (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The page numbers from Armstrong's book are there. If you want chapter numbers you will have to find the book yourself, because I don't own it and no longer live in the same town where I studied at university (and thus, no longer have access to the book). The other references are in order.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually p.223-224 from Chapter Channels of Nationalists activity (Prosvita etc). Could you please check once moreJo0doe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the page numbers of the most recent edition. The passage is from those exact pages - chapter title is irrelevent.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You refuse to provide chapter(s) name. I’ve look at recent edition. There no such info at mentioned page. Please spell 2 neighboring chapters nameJo0doe (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chapter name is irrelevent. Page numbers are not. Now let's be clear about an important matter:

You claim "I've looked at recent edition. There is no such info at mentioned page." Do you assert that "John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 3rd edition. Englewood, Colorado: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1990. ISBN: 0872877558 (2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.223-224" does NOT include the phrase ""If one takes into account the duration, geographical extent, and intensity of activity, the UPA very probably is the most important example of forceful resistance to an established Communist regime prior to the decade of fierce Afghan resistance beginning in 1979...the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was, of course, far more important, involving to some degree a population of nine million...however it lasted only a few weeks. In contrast, the more-or-less effective anti-Communist activity of the Ukrainian resistance forces lasted from mid-1944 until 1950."?

Yes or no?Faustian (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide chapters name first? 2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963 - could you prove what this is correct?Jo0doe (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the 1990, not 1963 edition. As I explained to you, I do not have the book in my possession so I cannot give you chapter name, whatever relevance that has. The page numbers of the quote are in the reference: John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 3rd edition. Englewood, Colorado: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1990. ISBN: 0872877558 (2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963). No games, please. You claimed "I’ve look at recent edition. There no such info at mentioned page." Really? Do you insist?Faustian (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So - you've not book but include this very detailed citation - were you got it?

May I remind you something - 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [41]

22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [42]

So actually – have you a book which author designated “For Annette and ???” – I hope if you got book you can spell me a second name. My book was badly stamped with a lot of stamps – so I can detect what it was print by Ukrainian Academic Press a Division of Libraries unlimited, Inc P.O. Box 263 Littleton, Colorado 80160 and last figure of the publishing year is 0. It got 13 chapters . So – spell the chapters name please. Jo0doe (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I once had access to the book but no longer have access because I no longer live in the city where I attended university (whose library I used). Is that hard for you to understand? Now, I ask again, in the 1990 edition,

You claim "I've looked at recent edition. There is no such info at mentioned page." Do you assert that "John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 3rd edition. Englewood, Colorado: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1990. ISBN: 0872877558 (2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.223-224" does NOT include the phrase ""If one takes into account the duration, geographical extent, and intensity of activity, the UPA very probably is the most important example of forceful resistance to an established Communist regime prior to the decade of fierce Afghan resistance beginning in 1979...the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was, of course, far more important, involving to some degree a population of nine million...however it lasted only a few weeks. In contrast, the more-or-less effective anti-Communist activity of the Ukrainian resistance forces lasted from mid-1944 until 1950."?

Yes or no?

You have already been caught making false accusations about hoaxing regardiong the second edition of Krokhmaliuk's book. Let's see if you are doing it again - it may be a few months before I go back, scan the page, etc. but will do so to show conclusively what kind of editor you are. So again - what is your answer?Faustian (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A mystery!!! You claim what you’ve access to the book with ISBN: 0872877558 but many time referenced specific citation from New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. So why you not use book which you actually have, but choose to use book which you actually does not have. Why you omit info what New York: Columbia University Press, 1963 Studies of The Russian Institute, Columbia University – i.e. you omit what it’s actually Sovietology publication – i.e. questionable for history article and NPOV. I describe you book which I’ve – so, if you’ve excess to the book and such precisely citing it – I hope you also spell me a chapter’s name from which this citation is originated.

So

• Why you use refs to other book instead book you claim you have?
• Is Ukrainian Academic Press a Division of Libraries unlimited is reliable source? Or it has a similar reliability as Varenekey and Shponder Academic Press and many other similar self nominated “academic” press?
• As far as you’ve a magical ability to very detailed citations, from the book which you not even look in, could you spell at least 2 name of Chapters from book you’ve an access. So I can detect if I’ve a similar edition of book. Jo0doe (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to prove your words, could you please cite were I call specifically UPA Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk Warfare in Ukraine Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press 1972 as hoax. Just one instance. Please!!!Jo0doe (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When did I claim I have the 1963 edition? I once had the 1990 edition (or rather, had access to it) and mistakenly put in the 1963 date as a reference. Understand now? No magic involved. Before answering any more questions on this topic I ask to answer the one I presented to you first:

You claim "I've looked at recent edition. There is no such info at mentioned page." Do you assert that "John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 3rd edition. Englewood, Colorado: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1990. ISBN: 0872877558 (2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.223-224" does NOT include the phrase ""If one takes into account the duration, geographical extent, and intensity of activity, the UPA very probably is the most important example of forceful resistance to an established Communist regime prior to the decade of fierce Afghan resistance beginning in 1979...the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was, of course, far more important, involving to some degree a population of nine million...however it lasted only a few weeks. In contrast, the more-or-less effective anti-Communist activity of the Ukrainian resistance forces lasted from mid-1944 until 1950."?

Yes or no?

You have already been caught making false accusations about hoaxing regarding the second edition of Krokhmaliuk's book. Let's see if you are doing it again - it may be a few months before I go back, scan the page, etc. but will do so to show conclusively what kind of editor you are. So again - what is your answer?Faustian (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But not from the time when such citation appeared in the article, note March and April my comments. – Any suggestion, about why you not use book which you allegedly “have” but not use as a refs from the beginning?Jo0doe (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So what is your answer?Faustian (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to prove your words, could you please cite were I call specifically UPA Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk Warfare in Ukraine Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press 1972 as hoax. Just one instance. Please!!!Jo0doe (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Propositions

Dear editors I kindly ask you to act accordingly to WP rules and recommendations. Please carefully read sources and conduct good research before inserting your personal opinions or groundless propagandistic claims. Please provide more detail related to the event and/or action – so the average non Eastern European visitors can form own opinion rather then consume opinion of somebody else. Moreover I kindly ask you not to mistakenly mismatch UPA and OUN(b) underground which actually has women and notable printing propaganda sources. As regards to article structure – I really appreciate your effort to put Germans in a front (and everything in it), justify the Poles ethnical cleaning and magnify the UPA actions – please be inline with historical facts. So, the articles structure should represent the time-scale and notability of events actions. As a far as we can have a end of February OUN-SD 1943 decision to begin armed warfare against poles, soviet partisans and Germans – we should rank them by a scale of extent and activity. – i.e. 1) Poles 2) Soviet Partisans 3) Germans. As far as I expected the already appeared in this talk page claim what UPA started their action against German first – I, again, recommend to read whole book. So if assume so - we omit other conclusion – like for instance “actions limited in a form of self-defense activity” etc. Moreover if we read other chapters we can find what military formations of OUN(b) got awesome success in diversions of Red Army in 1941, while military formations which composed exclusively from OUN(b) proponents exterminate Jews in 1941-42 and Poles from autumn 1942. Brief note about such included but not ordered in same way – because it’s not main topic of article. I appreciate for your cooperation and effort in making WP reliable. Moreover I avoid the editing of article for 1+ month to gave you a free hand to correct your “mistakes”Jo0doe (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MYSTERY SOLVED – Krokhmaluk or Krokhmaliuk

Copied from a talk page:

Books: Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press and 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) are the same book.

First edition (private publication) Publisher: NY: Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press.

See www.abebooks.com (used book website) under “UPA Warfare in Ukraine”.

Not a mistake nor a HOAX! The hysterical ramblings of one editor completely UNNECESSARY! It really borders on uncivil behavior.Bobanni (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And it's a waste of other editors' time that could have been spent more constructively. But this is what happens when a disruptive editor is allowed to do his thing (and shame on me for actually taking his word for it and stating that I had made a mistake in that edit so long ago - I give others too much credit).Faustian (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you've actually able to provide infor about Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press.

. So,actually, does Sobtelnyy and Magoci reccomed Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press.? So UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions exist in Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press - so could you provide a page numbers? Could you prove what it's a WP:RS source = (private publication) and (limited printing). Thank youJo0doe (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• can't find 1973 - Description: 2nd ed. 449p. Maps. Photos. Fine/Near Fine copy. Bookseller Inventory # 60-544 Bibliographic Details

Publisher: Vantage, 1972. Publication Date: 1972 Binding: Hard Cover Any commentsJo0doe (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we wasted enough time chasing your false accusations?Faustian (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are we? So you still affirm what Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press book is exist? And

NY: Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press. (vanity press) - as a reliable source? Any replay on Armstrong 1963 or 1990Jo0doe (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

JO0DOE

The book exists!

The program under which it was published is not VANITY PRESS - It is an agreement between the authors to assume the cost of printing a book for a small market. Vantage press still does all the fact checking for this book.

If you look it up under google-books you will find that it has been used a source for the following books:

1. Case Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: A World Survey - Page 442 by Winifred Crum Ewing, Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen - Discrimination - 1975 ... 89. Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, The Rape of Poland: Pattern of Soviet Aggression, New York: 1948, pp. 180-202. 90. Staar, The Communist Regimes, pp. 138-39. 91. Ibid., pp. ...

2. Operation Rollback: America's Secret War Behind the Iron Curtain - Page 228 by Peter Grose - Political Science - 2001 - 256 pages Fascinating . . . well-documented . . . thought-provoking and entertaining" (Publishers Weekly),Operation Rollback is a tale of intrigue and espionage that reveals how and...

3. Ukraine a history: A History - Page 676 by Orest Subtelny - History - 2000 - 736 pages With the new edition, Subtelny revises the story up to the spring of 2000.

4. Galicia, a Historical Survey and Bibliographic Guide: A Historical Survey ... - Page 220 by Paul R. Magocsi, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute - History - 1983 - 299 pages ... the changes that have taken place in the Lemkian region since that time are analyzed in a solid sociological study by Maria Biernacka.10 As for the immediate postwar years, ...

5. Searching for Place: Ukrainian Displaced Persons, Canada, and the Migration ... - Page 523 by Lubomyr Y. Luciuk - Political Science - 2000 - 576 pages Lubomyr Y. Luciuk is a professor in the Department of Politics and Economics at the Royal MilitaryCollege of Canada.

6. Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and ... - Page 404 by Tadeusz Piotrowski - History - 1997 - 437 pages Based on primary and secondary sources in numerous languages (including Polish, German, Ukrainian,Belorussian, Russian and English), this work examines the roles of the ethnic...

7. A History of Ukraine - Page 725 by Paul Robert Magocsi - History - 1996 - 784 pages Soviet Union (New York 1993), pp. 319-349; an intellectual biography of the church's imprisoned and later exiled metropolitan: Jaroslav Pelikan, Confessor between East and ... Lim

8. genocide and rescue in wolyn: Recollections of the Ukrainian Nationalist ... - Page 293 by Tadeusz Piotrowski - History - 2000 - 319 pages After the 1939 Soviet and 1941 Nazi invasions, the people of Southeast Poland underwent a third andeven more terrible ordeal when they were subjected to mass genocide by the...

JO0DOE a lot of your argument tend to be circular. I feel that this may be a result of your weak command of the English language. My personal recommendation to you is to pursue these articles in Ukrainian and Russian versions of Wikipedia. After a while, once you learn how Wikipedia works in languages you are more fluent - then give English Wikipedia another try. Bobanni (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Google is not an Universe for publishing book. I assume you affirm what Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press. Did you note what I ask about specifically this book. Not limited edition 1972. If you try to search Völkischer Beobachter you can find a lot more instances of usage. Have you read Ukrainska Povstanska Armia by Mykola Lebed, Munich 1946 in non doctored version? Did you see Guerra y Libertad . Jorge Krojmaluk Buenos Aires 1961? Highly recommend – read more before made any suggestions for other editors. However you are WP:HONEST in your edits in this article –

The purpose of reference was to show that OUN/UPA was not allied with the Nazis. Bobanni (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Breaking this Gordian knot

Maybe this can be done if we agree to follow our sourcing policies as well as common sense.

1. Magosci and Subtelny, are doubtlessly mainstream scholars and can (and should) be used.
2. If their claims contradict with the claims of other reliable scholars, both should be stated and the weight accordingly to the popularity of the view in the field
3. Of course if new discoveries made one of the views simply outdated like the authors of a later source had access to the archival data not available at the time when the older source, the discrepancy may be attributed to that and treated accordingly. Subtelny's book was published in 1988, archives opening was just starting and going slowly in 1990s, Magocsi's book was published in 1996 and the "ОУН-УПА" by Dzyobak et al of the Institute of History of Ukraine was published in 2004-2005. It seems to me that scholars with access to archives published in independent Ukraine in 2000s had by far the best access to archival data but in parts where they don't contradict to the Canadian scholars, the latter can be used for sure.
4. Memoirs of the events' participants is somewhat tricky, especially since regular witnesses usually don't have any scholarly credentials. Mere facts and events which the writer could personally see, can probably be used if the info is attributed and does not contradict anything in reliable sources. However, we should be careful about the assessments and especially judgments made by such authors since they lack the background to make judgments and generalizations.
   • Example. If the commander of the company writes about the events of the fight, then his report on what he personally witnessed is more reliable than the commander's assessment of the overall outcome of the battle where many other companies fought. However, the memoirs of the higher level commander who oversaw the whole operation are more reliable in assessment of the battle. If their claims do not contradict claims made by reliable scholars, we can probably use them with proper attribution. Of course if there are clear reasons to believe the witness may be deceiving, this is another story.
5. Finally, attributing should be done with utmost care, especially if we present contradictory claims from different sources or source the facts to the witnesses' memoirs. If the witness is cited by a scholar, we should just say something like "Subtelny, citing Tys-Krokhmalyuk, writes that..."

I think following these simple common sense rules, we can resolve factual disagreements. --Irpen 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this is generally what I have been trying to do. With respect to your last point, however, we should be careful not to editorialize. So if Subtelny himself states that according to so-an-so... then this description should be repeated. However, if he takes info for any source but does not qualify it in any way, neither should we IMO. What do you think?Faustian (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if he takes info from Krokhmalyuk, it is best to say something like "Subtelny, cites Krokhmalyuk saying that..." precisely because Krokhmalyuk is a tricky source as discussed above. Also, if we cite Subtelny citing Krokhmaluk, we should not list Khorkhmaluk in a reference until we see this book ourselves. Until then the ref should say "Krokhamlyuk, book name, cited through Subtelny". --Irpen 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But doing so involves our judgment of Krokhmaliuk's work, not Subtelny's who took him at face value with respect tot he specific thing he was citing. It's a slippery slope.Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing the source that we have not seen but making a reference look as if we did is simply wrong. If we cite Krokhmalyuk directly, we must have seen such book. If we only know about Krokhmalyuk's claim from Subtelny and did not see the book ourselves, we should cite in a way such that reflects that. "Cited through" is a way to go. --Irpen 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. What I was talking about was reading something by Subtelny, finding through the bibliography where Subtelny got his information from, and then editorializing or qualifying the statement in the wikipedia article with "Subtleny said, citing Krokhmaliuk...".Faustian (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote here how the specific example looks in Subtelny? --Irpen 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking hypothetically - I'm not sure if there is an example.Faustian (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It would just be easier if we discussed a specific example. OK, let's look at these hypothetical ones.

Subtelny: "On March 17 the UPA unit A destroyed B armored units of Wermacht in an engagement near a village C.<Reference to krokhmalyuk included or not?> On the next day Germans summarily executed executed 4 OUN leaders in retaliation."

If Subtelny does not refer it to Krokhmalyuk, we should simply refer to Subtelny. He is a reliable scholar and if this info is not contradicted in other sources, this is the end of it. If Subtelny included a ref to Krokhmaluk, we should say "According to Krokhmaluk, cited by Subtelny, the guerrillas destroyed." There are multiple reasons to do so. Firstly, Krokhmalyuk is neither a scholar nor a primary source (like the archival data would be) but a biased witness. If Subtelny finds it fit to use him in this instance, so can we but adding this bit of info is only fair to the reader. Besides, it never hurts to relay the original source of the info when available. --Irpen 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.Faustian (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Such "agrees" will be speedely forgoted - it can be easely traced through this huge talks archive - but talks about nothing as some times passed and once again in article appeared non WP:UNDUE without any affort to get "article better" as it promised here dozens of times. Jo0doe (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just one instance -

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 actually we've now clear OR in the lead - without any affort to get "article better" - simply to push POVJo0doe (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply follow the WP Rules

Why not simply follow the WP Rules:

• As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. We must use for WP more reliable publication. WP:UNDUE –
• must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Or in article about Ukrainian history should be based on version of North-American Diaspora so-called “history” and cold-war institution Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute based on doctored documents?

Wikipedia policy is clear in its preference for English-language sources. As a reminder, per wikipedia policy, per 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."

However would be necessity to check the fairness of citation by some of editors in order to avoid the source

• Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

Cited as

• 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.

Somebody should assist the sole editor to find propagandistic 100K and explanation what this mean at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/12.pdf . As Irpen did for Horlo at Holodomor – however I expect it’is not help. Here we need a Relata Refero assistance.

The 100K figure was cited from Magosci.Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Originated from 1947 propagandistic claims dismissed by modern historians Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your explanations are irrelevent - the number is referenced whether you like the origins or not. You seem to believe that with enough OR you can debunk sources. Sorry, but no amount of OR can do that.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP rules article must represent all parties visions about specific event – not only UPA itself – but Poles, Soviets, Germans and other wings of OUN – it will allow visitors to form their own opinion. Lets facts speaks about themselves.

Which is what it does currently.Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• In fact attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority viewJo0doe (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid usage of non-historical sources in article about history (avoid sovietologist and anti-soviet propagandist allegedly claims).

How about Soviet claims also? How many members of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences are former communist party members? Or is your proposed purge one-sided?Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While exist much easiest and most effective solution – more strictly follow the WP:Rules – WP:Vandalism, WP:NOHOAXES, WP:NOR – per WP:SYN – so the editors, which replaced referenced data with unreferenced data more then 3 time - please edit any other articles for some time. Inserting or restoring

• UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions

Is that in the article currently?Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

and officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 … 500,000

This one in the article currentlyJo0doe (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

- people please read more book before returning to WP editing after some rest.

Because if we accepting the way of any information presenting it will be appeared as below

• Accordingly to Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine historians data from February 1944 till January 1946 there was arrested 24339 persons, while North Americal Sovietologist assume this figure as high as 250.676. Total number of arrested for period from 1944 till 1956, Accordingly to Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine historians data, - 103 866 from them more then 70K were imprisoned.
• Accordingly to Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine historians data from mid of 1944 till January 1949 115.820 persons were deported from Western Ukraine as “bandits families and supporters”. At same time Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora well known historians estimate figures of deported as high as 500.000 for period from 1946 till 1949.

Mentioned info has no quality for WP or sense for visitors but – as you remember a Horlo edits in Holdomor – here the same case. Jo0doe (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Burds claims 250,000 arrested: [43], page 97. According to WP:RSUE Burds takes precedence over Ukrainian-language sources (though I think both ought to be included).Faustian (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RSUE there no similar quality English language work to History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine. So accordingly to WP:RS work to History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine is more reliable and reflect the majority of historians visions. Per WP requirement, sovietlogist has less NPOV as compared to historians to history article.Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. The fact is that Burds [44] is a historian affiliated with the top Western universities (indeed, does any university in Ukraine have the intenrational reputation of Yale and Harvard?), specializing in Ukrainian insurgency and counterinsurgency, who has had full access to Soviet archives. His Ph.D. from Yale, earned with distinction according to the CV, was in history. He can hardly be accused of pushing a pro-UPA POV, as his works contains a lot of grisly details about UPA crimes against civilians (you even quoted them!). So he is at least at the same level as the historians from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. However, because Burds' work is available in English, it takes precedence over the work of the former institution per wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just what encarved in WP:Rules - see WP:RS - there no CV records mentioned - only number of historians. So you claim what Burds write similar quality English language work ? As regards ti his pro-UPA POV - read a russian version of his book - you can also find a clear tends to conspirasy - see WP:Redflag for such "works". His work contained in some extent copy-paste from earlier published work by other Ukrainian and Russian historians - so I quoted since I'don't need to translate similar words from other sources.Institute ofHistory of National Academy of Science of Ukraine publication assess him as a modern sovietologist which provides roasted facts to get more sells over grisly details and extrapolations.

WP:RSUE it's quite clear in it statements - assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality So does exist English work by collective of well respected historians from Institute of History by National Academy of Science which describe OUN and UPA in details? Exist? Yes or NoJo0doe (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exists works by historians from Yale or Harvard such as Burd, which is at least on the level of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and at least on the level of any author of any chapter by the work of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences UPA book. Each chapter of that book has only one or a couple listed authors, which is no different than an article by Burds. So the answer is yes - therefore Burds' work takes precedence over that of the Ukrainian-language only book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.Faustian (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Can't detect were exist one work by historians from Yale or Harvard - could you give a name? Does Burds did his agentura in Yale or Harvard ? Did you read WP:RS carefully. Each chapter of that book - produced as cooperative works by Institute of History of National Academy of Science. DYK the difference between one and many?Jo0doe (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Burds is an Associate of the Harvard Davis Center for Russian Studies

Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union [45]. I understand you claim that each chapter of the book by the Institute of History is a colalborative work. However, each chapter has one or a couple of listed authors. It may be that Burds' works also have collaborators, but he is the only listed authors. Stick to facts, please, not guesses or claims. At any rate, who says the numbers of authors are even relevent.

The facts, again, are that on the one hand we have a historian specialising in insurgency and counterinsurgency affiliated with two of the top Western universities (Yale and Harvard), whose articles are accessible on-line and in English. On the other hand, we have historians from a lesser known institution (Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), whose work is not in English and is not even accessible on-line. Wikipedia policy WP:RSUE is quite clear that the former supercedes the latter. I'll remind you again:

• WP:RS does not list any dependency on @known@ or @unknown@Jo0doe (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I remind you again assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality - could you prove your allegedly claim about "equal quality Jo0doe (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you prove your alleged claim about Institute of History "equal quality?" Claims (your or mine) without proof don't count. Without proof, we are forced to assume equal quality and thus English-language accessible source wins according to WP:RSUE.Faustian (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• So you reccomend to start UPA history from 1944 - since Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union does not provide any info about UPA activities in 1943? Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union - can't trace word history - so Sovietology center affilation put him back to sovietology article - but not historyJo0doe (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "Sovietology " not found on Burds' CV [46]. That's just your claim. Ph.D. in history however is found there. Let's stick to facts, not fantasies.Faustian (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Intresting - what about July 1998- Senior Research Fellow & University Officer, The Ukrainian Research Institute,

Harvard University July 1997- Associate Fellow, Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard UniversityJo0doe (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So where, above, is the word "Sovietology?" Facts, please. But thanks for confirming that Burds is affiliated with one of the top universities in the West.Faustian (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold war and Sovietology in WP

Interesting info from the publication of the of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine with assessment of the Tys-Krochmalyuk and Burds publications: I hope someone would be able to assist in translation: “Американські історичні дослідження СРСР у другій половині ХХ ст. перебу- вали під сильним впливом холодної війни. Великий попит на політичні та стратегічні дослідження розвитку Східної Європи та Радянського Союзу покликав до життя таку дисципліну як совєтологія. Враховуючи гуманітарний профіль останньої, логічно, що цей процес тісно переплітався з іншими сферами гуманітарного знання, зокрема й історії. Більш того, саме історики становили переважну кількість науковців, задіяних у совєтологічних дослідженнях. Для задоволення високого попиту на роботи в галузі совєтології при універ- ситетах США було створено ряд центрів: Російський інститут в Колумбійському університеті (1946), Російський дослідницький центр в Гарварді (1948), Центр слов’янських і східноєвропейських досліджень в Каліфорнійському університеті (Берклі) та інші. Совєтологія щедро фінансувалася як приватними корпораціями (фонди Рокфеллера, Карнегі, Форда), так і державними, такими як ВВС та ЦРУ Російський дослідник совєтології А.Некрасов вказує, що в 50-і рр. «можна говорити не тільки про вплив холодної війни на американську совєтологію, але й про те, що вона сама стає одним з інструментів холодної війни»

Своєрідною відповіддю на кризові явища в американському суспільстві став переклад англійською мовою книги Ю.Тис-Крохмалюка «Військова діяльність УПА в Україні». Автор, відомий своїми антирадянськими поглядами, в передмові до англомовного видання наголошував на практичному значення своєї роботи, в якій він намагався якомога детальніше задокументувати партизанські методи боротьби, оскільки «.. війська США у В’єтнамі і Лаосі змушені вдатися до партизанських методів, не зважаючи на той факт, що вони складають найкраще треновану й технічно оснащену (на сьогодні. – Авт.) армію в світі..» Центр ім. Девіса, в якому працює Дж. Бурдс, є спадкоємцем створеного у 1948 р. Російського дослідницького центру при Гарвардському університеті Предмет досліджень дещо видозмінився по формі, але по суті залишився тим самим: ним виступає Росія та країни, які її оточують.

Появу в середині 70-х рр. англомовного перекладу книги Ю.Тис-Крохмалюка не можна розцінювати як новий період зацікавлення українським рухом опору, оскільки перевидання було відповіддю на невдачі й промахи американської армії у В’єтнамі.

Роботи Дж. Бурдса фактично відкривають якісно новий етап у вивченні історії України та українського націоналістичного руху, бо знаменують собою подолання совєтологічної кризи 80-х–90-х рр. Новий напрямок ще не отримав якоїсь конкретної назви, проте очевидним є факт, що ми маємо справу з оновленою і модифікованою совєтологією.

So Cold War Propaganda and new- Sovietology assumed as a good source for WP - history article?Jo0doe (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Окремо треба відмітити, що такі великі проміжки у часі дослідженнявластиві не тільки для розробки означеної нами проблеми, але й для більшостіробіт з історії ОУН і УПА. Притаманний для північноамериканської історіографіїпрагматизм і орієнтація на комерційний успіх дослідження, як правило, булио сновним критерієм у виборі проблематики дослідження

A "book selling - "history"" - is it WP:NPOV?Jo0doe (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please provide citations (author, etc.) for the above publication.

• Please describe where the author states that Burds' work is nonobjective or unreliable. Or is that your personal conclusion?Faustian (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• DYK the diffence between Sovietology and History and sovietologist and historian here is directly mentioned what his works is not work by historian and about history but work of sovietologist and new-sovietology

You still refused to provide the author of the citation above. I hope you didn't make it up. Anyways, the fact is that Burds earned his Ph.D. in history ("with distinction") from Yale [47]. I'm sorry you have a personal problem with that. Your digging into Cold War stuff can just as easily be applied toward the historians at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. How many were once members of the Communist Party? Indeed, according to his Russian wikipedia page, one of the author's of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' book about UPA, Stanyslav Kulchytsky, was a member of the Communist Party for 30 years, and until 1991 was a member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. And you accuse of Burd of being nonobjective, Sovietologiost, etc.? Rather hypocritical, don't you think? The historian Kulchytsky can just as easily be dismissed as a Communist ideologue, as the historian Burds can be dismissed as a "Sovietologist." I'd rather not go down that road. Faustian (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Does Burds Doctor works related to Ukrainian History? Does Deputy Head of the Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine write his work personally and while been at Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Does publication of the US National Academy of Science describes him as a hidden communist (17 years were passed since Communist Party of Ukraine was forbidden)? You mistakenly compare historian which get his Ph.D. in history when sovietologist enrolled in preliminary school. May be you not point but you spoke about self publication by ONE new-sovietologist vs work by Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine –

• DYK the difference between one and many and and sovietologist and historian? As regards (author, etc.) you asked for – I don’t plan to include this info in articleJo0doe (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn the difference between sovietology and history. Burds' Ph.D., earned "with distinction" from Yale, is in history [48]. The work I referenced here was not self-published. As I said, each chapter you reference from the book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences was written by one or a small number of people. Just like the article by Burds. The difference is that Burds' work referenced here is in English while the other work is in Ukrainian. In terms of credentials - Burds' longstanding affiliation with two of the top univerisities in the world (Harvard and Yale) certainly place him no lower than the Institute of History of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. I suppose that all you can do to countract this is to claim that Burds is a "sovietologist" while conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the scholars you support are former communists (including a former member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine). Your excuses are not very impressive, but we'll have to stick to the facts:

• Burds, Ph.D. in History from Yale, currently affiliated with Harvard, specialist in "Modern Russian and Soviet History; 20th-century Ukraine; banditry & insurrection; Soviet secret police", with English-language articles from peer-reviewed journals available on-line.

• Various scholars from Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, work not in English, often not available on-line (it's been weeks since that UPA book has been available).

Wikipedia policy is quite clear that Burds is preferable to the latter as a source.

And you still haven't provided any reference to your claims about Sovietology etc. Who wrote that stuff? Why do you refuse to provide this information? Did you make it up?Faustian (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't provided any reference - see more detiailed. I've no plan to create article in WP about Burds -since he almost unknown sovietologist or update Sovietology. You still haven't provided any replay to your claims about Armstrong and Krochmalyuk, which you actually used many times in this article - were you got info which you refenced through them, if, actully, you've not mentionined in you hands.Jo0doe (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning of this section you added a lot of info which you claimed was "from the publication of the of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine with assessment of the Tys-Krochmalyuk and Burds publications". Which publication? Who wrote it? You refuse to provide that information. So those claims above are empty. As is your claim that he is "almost unknown sovietologist."

• I assume empty for you - but not for WP.Jo0doe (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume but should seek out facts. The fact is that you wrote a lengthy quote but did not include the name of the publication nor the author. Without attribution the quote is meaningless.Faustian (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Armstrong is referenced, including the page number. That's all that's necessary. Show me please which wikipedia policy demands that chapter names are also included, which is what you are asking.Faustian (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Many times from 1963 publication Jo0doe (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. The reference in the article is: "John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 3rd edition. Englewood, Colorado: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1990. ISBN: 0872877558 (2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.223-224"Faustian (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• By the time when this citation was included in the article it was many time cited trough 1963 publication. So adding later info, which should be appeared from the beginning is very strange. Moreover – editor refused to provide more details about book which he allegedly have by the time when citation was included. To many mysteryJo0doe (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference was corrected to the correct edition. Please point out which wikipedia policy demands that when references are gioven, the editor must be in possession of the book for eternity.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Glaring example of original research

Thanks to an anonymous editor who caught this and brought it to my attention. One of the things that Jo0doe wants to place in the article is the following [49][50]:

"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” [48]. "

Fortunately the references are available on-line (although Jo0doe did not provide the on-line reference - I wonder why). The first reference [47] is here: [51] and the second reference here: [52].

Now let's look at what Jo0doe tried to do with those two documents. As we have seen, he tried to make an edit to the article asserting that according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations working with the Abwehr had the same goals as the Nazis with respect to Jews and Poles including all Polish dwellings going up in flames and all Jews killed. The "evidence" for this are:

• a transcript of an interview [53]in which an Austrian officer describes in 1945, a conversation he overheard six years earlier in 1939 between Keitel and Canaris with no OUN members (or any Ukrainians) present, in which Keitel is overheard stating "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews." This bit of information is the basis for Jo0doe writing "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..." into the article.

• another excerpt from the interview [54] in which Ribbentrop is said to be planning an instigation of Galician Ukraine aimed at the extermination of Poles and Jews. According to the interviewed officer, in 1945 he stated that he overheard in 1939 Ribbentrop say to Canaris "...that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed."

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews.

I wonder what others think of this style of editting?

It's more than original research - it's deceitful use of primary sources. And unfortunately, it fits a longstanding pattern of this person's edits.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh – Great at least editor invented vanity press as WP:RS here found only one secondary source which uses this wording – Google is great.

While, actually, I refer my citation to IMT material available online at www.loc.gov.

So here we go farther – here we open a secret: a name and position of “Austrian officer”:

• Rank: Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN
• Position: Abwehr Division I since 1938
• Admiral Canaris was his immediate superior
• From time to time he act as personal representative of Admiral Canaris
• Part of duties as personal representative of Admiral Canaris - write entries in Canaris diaries on Conferences which he attended with Canaris as his representative.

• So what’s hided under word “interview” –

IMT Hearing 30 November 1945, afternoon session. Hearing the witness for the Prosecution (United States Prosecutor). Oral prove of those stated at copy of Canaris diary – DOCUMENTS originated from Fuhrer train discussion as of 12 September 1939, shortly before fall of Warsaw with presence of Von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Jodl – head of Wehrmacht Operations Staff; Canaris and himself

Hearing lasted also 1 December 1945 – were stated : ..meeting in the coach of Keitel, who was then Chief of the OKW, and in the course of this meeting Keitel summarized and commented on the general political directives issued by Ribbentrop. He then mentioned several possible solutions for handling the Polish problem from the point of view of foreign policy – this can be happened, or something else can happen; it is quite possible. I this connection he said: “You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews”.

As for me – it’s similarly action as call OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “ Fights and activities during the war” - @made numerous violently anti-Semitic statements@ – and forgot about actions. So I highly recommend editors to read

• http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-05-01
• http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-01-01

And especially http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf were can find a lot of fruitful details and specially about OUN(B) and Admiral Canaris. So read more books Before accusing somebody in OR. Also do so before including the info in WP. Jo0doe (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

you lie by ommission. You try to deliberately leave another person with a misconception. Clearly you are editting in bad faith.Faustian (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's sad that you keep proving that what I said in January is still correct, even though you took my quote from a different context. But since we see how you do that with the references, why expect you to do differently with an editor's words?

At least, you don't deny that you made edits based on conversations recalled six years earlier between various German and Austrian officials, described six years after they happened by someone overhearing them. You tried to pass this off as ""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” [48]. "

If you were truthful you would have written something like, "according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal an Austrian officer testified that six years earlier he had overheard a conversation in which Canaris was told by Keitel that the Germans and a Ukrainian organization they were working with had the same objectives, and that in another recalled conversation Ribbentrop said that in an uprising Polish dwellings should go up in flames and all Jews should be killed." That would have been the honest approach. Unfortunately for you, such a statement would be of questionable relavence here. After all, OUN isn't specifically mentioned (even though you put them into your passage) and since when were Keitel or Ribbentrop experts or knowledgable about OUN matters? Are Keitel and Ribbentrop academic sources? So you had to twist the meaning quite a bit to fit it in by, as I correctly observed earlier, "lying by omission" - conveniently leaving out the facts I described above. And using OR to put together what you wanted to present. Well, at least you have been caught.Faustian (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• So – I simply visit www.loc.gov and read IMT Vol I-XXX. So in Vol II and III appeared what you’ve mentioned here about. So I don’t engage in WP:OR as you are -

“that six years earlier he had overheard a conversation in which Canaris was told by Keitel that the Germans and a Ukrainian organization they were working with had the same objectives, and that in another recalled conversation Ribbentrop said that in an uprising Polish dwellings should go up in flames and all Jews should be killed” .

Per WP: Policy I simply provide exact citation from the source, without any analytical assumption as far as similar info published many times and adopted by wide historians community as reliable – i.e. OUN (and specially OUN under Bandera wing) was especially active in Nazi collaboration, OUN(B) ideology was in most position similar to Nazi – as same as their actions. So here is nothing new.

Well, we see above how "exact" your citation was. You referred to OUN (B), but it wasn't mentioned in the source. The claimed that the source stated that OUN (B) and Nazi goals were the same. The source made no conclusions at all (here is the source: [[55]). The source was just a description of what an Austrian officer - okay General, as if the type of officer is relevent - said he overheard. Thanks for showing your approach to citations.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to how OUN(B) details given – (OUN(B)) – i.e. it’s mean what this words does not exist in citation but actually under Ukrainian organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr means OUN and specially OUN(B) – see more info here http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf and about appraisal here http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/1.pdf - it’s not my OR as you allegedly claim – I simply summaries what actually stated in WP:RS – If you personally would like I’ll state what under Ukrainian organizations means OUN and especially proactive OUN(B) but appraisal in 1940 was prevented by NKVD actions. Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You try to deliberately leave another person with a misconception 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So why actually you call Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN as “Austrian Officer”Jo0doe (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Omit to mention what he act as personal representative of Admiral CanarisJo0doe (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

various German and Austrian officials – why you omit names of “officials” - Von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Jodl – head of Wehrmacht Operations Staff; Canaris

Why you omit a place - Fuhrer train discussion as of 12 September 1939, shortly before fall of Warsaw.

Because those details weren't mentioned in what you cited and because those details are irrelevent to the case of you misusing the source. You are just throwing them out here in order to try to obfuscate. And it isn't working.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What are actually was misused – does I change a history? While your attempt to pose IMT hearing as interview Major General personal representative of Admiral Canaris as “Austrian officer”: Top of Nazi leaders and War Criminals as “various German and Austrian officials” is clearly noted – You try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception and omit ().Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I omitted nothing from the source. Please point out where in the source [56] that you listed, the rank Major General is used. You accuse me of omitting something that is not there. More importantly, you are trying to deflect the conversation from your obvious misstating of what the source said to one about ranks and other details. It's not working.

Unlike you, I do not make things up when citing a source and excuse it by satying, "does I change a history?"Faustian (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I use www.loc.gov IMT Vol I-XXX. So we spoke about different sources. Or you allegedly claim what in IMT Vol I-XXX not mentioned what OUN(B) worked for Canaris in late 1939. It's not workingJo0doe (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you – it’s article about military formation of OUN under Bandera which accept and act under similar command and ideology. Actions of this formation and it “mother organization” assessed by many historians in lights of “злочини проти людяності, що містяться в Статуті Міжнародного Військового Трибуналу від 8 серпня 1945 р., а також в "Конвенції у справі запобігання і покарання злочинів геноциду" Організації Об'єднаних Націй від 9 грудня 1948 р. Тут відзначимо і таке, що для виправдання воєнних злочинів нерідко посилаються на противоправну поведінку протиборствуючої сторони як підставу для допустимості цих злочинів.” [57]

That may be true, or may not be. But irrelevent to the fact that you misused the source as described in the beginning of this section.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

'You try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception (see above for details) and omit ().Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I omitted nothing from the source. Please point out where in the source [58] that you listed, the rank Major General is used. You accuse me of omitting something that is not there. Is that all you have left?Faustian (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I use www.loc.gov IMT Vol I-XXX. So we spoke about different sources. Or you allegedly claim what in IMT Vol I-XXX not mentioned what OUN(B) worked for Canaris in late 1939. It's not workingJo0doe (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job imitating me - you are better at that than you are in trying to deceive wikipedia readrs. Unfortunately, you "forgot" that when you cited the interview in your version of the article [59] you included page 21. This is the page I showed the link to. This is the page we are discussing. It looks like you've been caught being dishonest again : ( Faustian (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover – see СПІЛЬНИЙ ВИСНОВОК УКРАЇНСЬКИХ ТА ПОЛЬСЬКИХ ІСТОРИКІВ ЗА ПІДСУМКАМИ ІХ-Х МІЖНАРОДНИХ НАУКОВИХ СЕМІНАРІВ (Варшава, 5-11 листопада 2001 р.)

Українсько-польський конфлікт у роки Другої світової війни набув особливо драматичного характеру на Волині. У 1942 р. дійшло до перших акцій з боку українських націоналістів проти поляків, що працювали в сільськогосподарській адміністрації та лісництві. Ці акції поступово поширилися на польське сільське населення східних повітів Волині. Антипольські акції керівництво ОУН обґрунтувало прагненням всіх польських політичних сил повернути адміністрацію Польської держави на теренах Волині та Східної Галичини. Навесні 1943 року після переходу до УПА української поліції, що перебувала на німецькій службі, почалися бурхливі дії партизанських загонів українських націоналістів. Від весни 1943 року ОУН і УПА вдалися до масових антипольських акцій - спочатку у східних повітах Волині, а згодом у центральних і західних. Перебіг подій засвідчував, що рішення про екстермінацію (за термінологією польських істориків) польського населення могло бути схвалене проводом ОУН весною 1943 року. Польське підпілля на Волині, що перебувало в стадії організації, не могло надати допомогу польському населенню. Радикальні заходи були вжиті Командуванням Волинського округу АК і Окружною Делегатурою уряду тільки в другій половині 1943 року, тобто зі значним запізненням і після масових вбивств польського населення в західних повітах Волині. на католицькі свята Різдва Христового 1943 р. на Волині прокотилася нова хвиля вбивств. У польсько-українському конфлікті, кульмінація якого припадає на 1943 рік, польське населення було стороною, що оборонялася. So, what about - для виправдання воєнних злочинів нерідко посилаються на противоправну поведінку протиборствуючої сторони як підставу для допустимості цих злочинів Jo0doe (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your misuse of sources described at the beginning of this heading. You are trying to change the subject. As for what it written above, it described ant-Polish massacres occurring but nowhere claims that OUN (B)'s goals was the same as Nazi goals and that OUN's goal included the extermination of Jews (your claim and what this section is about). Basically you've been caught being dishonest with sources and are trying to cover up your dishonesty by adding all sorts of irrelevent data.

It's not working.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply would like to point you edits in Poles section as described in WP:RS, which actually noted by many editor виправдання воєнних злочинів нерідко посилаються на противоправну поведінку протиборствуючої сторони як підставу для допустимості цих злочинів. Please read above about . And point what you dishonestly omit OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” moreover, in minutes of OUN (B) July 1941 Conference of OUN (B) clear visible a plan for partially Jewish population extermination and “ghettoizetion [60], Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The information above didn't come from the sources you cited when you stated that "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” [48]. "

I guess that rather than acknowledge your dishonesty about those sources you try to shift the topic to other sources and other statements, covering up your tracks, in the hopes that readers will forget what you did. It's not working. Try another heading with the stuff above and we'll discuss it.Faustian (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• You personal attack is noted. I use www.loc.gov IMT Vol I-XXX. So we spoke about different sources. Or you allegedly claim what in IMT Vol I-XXX not mentioned what OUN(B) worked for Canaris in late 1939. It's not workingJo0doe (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Great that you can imitate me. This is something that you are capable of doing with competance. You are making progress. Unfortunately you "forgot" that when you cited the interview in your version of the article [61] you included page 21, which I showed the link to. Oops. Just another example of your dishonesty.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your repeated abuse is noted:

 So, in order to clarify your claim:

Could you confirm what you unable to find at IMT Vol III and IMT Vol II prove of information which summarized (see good editing WP Policy for more details) below

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

• Have you note exact citations given in “” ? Have you note the summary explanations given in ()?
• DYK good editing WP Policy?
• Did you object what Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist worked with Amt Abwehr mentioned in IMT documents as one of the tools of Nazi’s crimes of aggression?

• Did you object what the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist worked with Amt Abwehr in 1939-1941.

• Did you object what especially Bandera’s Provid in Krakow (without approval of PUN) issue order in December 1939 to start active preparation to armed appraisal.

• Did you object what Bandera wing OUN formally created 10 February 1940 conduct active preparation to start appraisal (against decision of PUN) which planned to be accomplished by May 1940.

May I remind you a fall 1941 Nazi’s report:

• Specially detached formations of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in public with the use of Ukrainian Militia.

213.159.245.37 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but describing information from other sources and adding other details is no justification for dishonesty on the source I mentioned. Just because you quote "" words here and there doesn't mean mean much. You stated "Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews . Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” .

". The documents did not state that state that - they merely described what one Austrian officer (okay, General, as if it matters) said he overheard six years earlier from a conversation between Keitel and Canaris and Ribbentrop and Canaris. But you presented it quite differently.Faustian (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Ok, as far as I can see you've a difficulties with such strange and hard to understand for you words, So I try to be more simple:

• Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN at mentioned meering he act as personal representative of Admiral Canaris - write entries in Canaris diaries on Conferences which he attended with Canaris as his representative.
• If you look 445 you can find words - "I don't have them on me. But they are avialable here." - it's about "he overheard"
• Could you please describe below what, in your opinion, mean words from the Kietel same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews
• Or more simple what kind of objectives towards Poles and the Jews here mentioned by war criminal sentenced to hanging by IMT?
• Or as for kindergarten - what word "same" mean?
• Could you list any other Ukrainian organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr in 1939 which issued a General Instruction less then 1.5 years after Keitel order to Canaris in which stated Jews assimilation is impossible?Jo0doe (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, actually were is dishonesty on the source? Dishonest in what? Or you assume what IMT death sentence for Keitel was wrong. Or OUN does not work for Canaris? Or they not prepared the apprisal in Galizia?Jo0doe (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you claim that something is in a source it should be in the source. Is that hard to understand?

You claimed, and tried to place into the article:

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

When, as anyone can see (thanks to me providing the links to the actual sources you cited), this was not true: [62]. The source didn't make any claims about OUN goals or that OUN's goal was the extermination of the Jews; it just documented an interview in which an Austrian officer said that six years earlier he overheard Keitel telling Canaris "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews."

All the other info you are adding is just a pathetic attempt to distract readers from the fact that you were caught red-handed being dishonest about what the source actually included. It isn't working. Maybe you'd better stick to something you are competant in, such as imitating my words.Faustian (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cite one source – IMT documents – hearing of USA Prosecution witness. Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN, which act as personal representative of Admiral Canaris.

So, actually, you attempt to put other editor in misconception and challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution facts at IMT tribunal. So you claim what you unable to find words “organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews? and all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”. Or you suppose what such facts related to TWO DIFFERENT events? Actually it’s clear attempts of Holocaust denier- because facts about “objectives” and “all Jews be killed” were included in charge of both Nazi criminals. Once again – did you object well known facts what OUN(B) has similar to Nazi objectives – namely Poles and Jews – which clarified not only by “statements” but although through well recorded facts of OUN(B) Holocaust participation and ethnical cleaning of Poles? Jo0doe (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• DYK what Three copies of Canaris’s memorandum of Sep 12, 1939, exist:

one in the ‘Canaris–Lahousen fragments’ – a hitherto neglected file of key documents and extracts from the Canaris diary (al/1933); one in Groscurth’s papers (n.104/3); and an abbreviated copy in Lahousen’s IMT file (3047–ps); cf. Lahousen’s pre-trial interrogation of Sep 19, 1945, and Vormann’s diary, Sep 12, 1939: ‘Göring and Brauchitsch here at Ilnau. Canaris on account of Polish population.’Jo0doe (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been exposed, and now you've been reduced to calling me a "Holocaust denier." LEt's see, once again, your deception:

You claimed, and tried to place into the article:

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

When, as anyone can see (thanks to me providing the links to the actual sources you cited), this was not true: [63]. The source didn't make any claims about OUN goals or that OUN's goal was the extermination of the Jews; it just documented an interview in which an Austrian officer said that six years earlier he overheard Keitel telling Canaris "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews."

Documenting an interview about a conversation that was overheard six years earlier is not the same as endorsing whether or not the recollection was accurate or whether or not the opinion of those speaking was accurate. By stating, "according to documents..." you deliberately gave readers the false impression that International Military Tribune (i.e., its documents) endorsed the statements that followed.

This is like using a transcript of a witness testimony from a trial in which a witness claims that person X killed person Y, and writing "according to documents presented to the Cook County Court, person X killed person Y."

Edit honestly, please.Faustian (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Read books, please. So - once again - could you prove what you've able to note list of IMT documents - my post 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)?

As far as you repeatedly try to discredit reliability of USA prosecution arguments (said that six years earlier he overheard) which used farther many times in IMT hearing- through downgrading the Post of witness (Austrian officer) and procedure of Tribunal interview. I also would like to point what you delibeartely omit mentioned in IMT documents what OUN spell - Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists worked for Amt Abwehr. Strange what you do not oppose to my (as Nazi’s) inclusion as it also not appeared on link you've provided? So still according to documents of IMT (see list above)

Your reference was specific. And that was what you disohnestly presented.Faustian (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Or I can give a following more wide explantions:

You can make all of the excuses you wish to make. The fact is that you misrepresented what the document was. The document was a transcript of a witness saying what he had overheard 6 years earlier. The document does not state that this particular recollection was accurate or not. It just documents it. As I exaplianed earlier:

This is like using a transcript of a witness testimony from a trial in which a witness claims that person X killed person Y, and writing "according to documents presented to the Cook County Court, person X killed person Y."

Additional references or mentions of other documents are irrelevent because they don't change the fact that you dishonestly presented what those two particular references said (IMT Vol III p.21) and (IMT Vol II p.448).Faustian (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal confirmed by several witnessess Ukrainian organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr have same “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews . Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”.

Fortunately the references are available on-line (although Jo0doe did not provide the on-line reference - I wonder why). The first reference [47] is here: [64] and the second reference here: [65].

Now let's look at what Jo0doe tried to do with those two documents. As we have seen, he tried to make an edit to the article asserting that according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations working with the Abwehr had the same goals as the Nazis with respect to Jews and Poles including all Polish dwellings going up in flames and all Jews killed. The "evidence" for this are:

• a transcript of an interview [66]in which an Austrian officer describes in 1945, a conversation he overheard six years earlier in 1939 between Keitel and Canaris with no OUN members (or any Ukrainians) present, in which Keitel is overheard stating "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews." This bit of information is the basis for Jo0doe writing "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..." into the article.

• another excerpt from the interview [67] in which Ribbentrop is said to be planning an instigation of Galician Ukraine aimed at the extermination of Poles and Jews. According to the interviewed officer, in 1945 he stated that he overheard in 1939 Ribbentrop say to Canaris "...that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed."

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews. Are Keitel and Ribbentropp Wikipedia:Reliable sources about Ukraine? Better yet, is the recollection of an Austrian officer about a conversation he heard six years earlier a Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

Documents and witnesses testimony presented at IMT confirmed the fact what Ukrainian organizations - namely Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was a usefull tull for Nazi Germany in thier crime of agression. They worked with Amt Abwehr (IMT Vol II,III,VII, XIV)

I like how now you conveniently don't add the page numbers. Afraid that someone will check up on you? Avoiding Wikipedia:Verifiability?Faustian (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly to own OUN(B) documents thay began to prepare an apprisal in Galizia from the end of 1939 - but two attempta in spring and autmn 1940 were prevented by NKVD actions. Program adopted on I Congress of OUN in april 1941 include plans for Jews ghettonization. Same programs were adopted after praclamation of establishing of Ukrainian independent state in alliance with Nazi's Germany. Y.Stetsko - head of New Ukrainian goverment report to Bandera what "we create a militia which assist the germans in Jews removal". OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” Acordingly to IMT documents "Specially detached formations of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in public with the use of Ukrainian Militia. From 150.000 to 200.000 were exterminated" Ukrainian Auxilary Policy of Rovno region which consist exclusively from OUN(B) proponents participate in extermination of Rovno Ghetto - 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. In spring 1943 all of them moved to the UPA under Bandera and began ethnic clearning of Poles.Jo0doe (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) While it' does not change anything in more short versionJo0doe (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As predicted, above you try to hide your dishonesty by adding a lot of other information. Where are your sources for the above?Faustian (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When I’ll include this info in WP article – I’ll do so. But not here and for editor which attempt to pose for WP administrators IMT USA prosecution witness and IMT documents as unreliable by dishonestly play with facts.Jo0doe (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How convenient. However you lie as usual when you claim I "Attempt to pose for WP administrators IMT USA prosecution witness and IMT documents as unreliable by dishonestly play with facts". Unlike you I don't play with facts, I simply report them. You misreport them, as I've shown at the top of this section. That's the difference.Faustian (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again what you confirm your intend to pose IMT documents (available online at www.loc.gov ) – and specifically USA prosecution witness as unreliable. Thank you once again what you confirm your deliberate intend to pose ONE IMT Hearing regarding ONE document – copy of Canaris diary (namely 3047–ps)- presented to IMT as @two documents@. Thank, for what you confirm your try to put WP administrators in misconceptions. So I in last time ask –

• did you unable to find referenced by me wording in mentioned IMT volumes?
• Did you object what both of citation given related to one and same event?
• Did you object the existence of Canaris’s memorandum of Sep 12, 1939?
• Did you object what OUN worked for Amt Abwehr? Jo0doe (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was merely referring to your two citations and their misuse:

One of the things that Jo0doe wants to place in the article is the following [68][69]:

"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” [48]. "

Fortunately the references are available on-line (although Jo0doe did not provide the on-line reference - I wonder why). The first reference [47] is here: [70] and the second reference here: [71].

Now let's look at what Jo0doe tried to do with those two documents. As we have seen, he tried to make an edit to the article asserting that according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations working with the Abwehr had the same goals as the Nazis with respect to Jews and Poles including all Polish dwellings going up in flames and all Jews killed. The "evidence" for this are:

• a transcript of an interview [72]in which an Austrian officer describes in 1945, a conversation he overheard six years earlier in 1939 between Keitel and Canaris with no OUN members (or any Ukrainians) present, in which Keitel is overheard stating "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews." This bit of information is the basis for Jo0doe writing "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..." into the article.

• another excerpt from the interview [73] in which Ribbentrop is said to be planning an instigation of Galician Ukraine aimed at the extermination of Poles and Jews. According to the interviewed officer, in 1945 he stated that he overheard in 1939 Ribbentrop say to Canaris "...that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed."

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews.

Even worse, Jo0doe words his edit to imply that the IMT has drawn the conclusion that OUN and Nazi goals were the same, namely the extermination of Jews, based on those two references. The document was a transcript of a witness saying what he had overheard 6 years earlier. The document does not state that this particular recollection was accurate or not. It just documents it. As I explained earlier:

This is like using a transcript of a witness testimony from a trial in which a witness claims that person X killed person Y, and writing "according to documents presented to the Cook County Court, person X killed person Y."

So a question for Jo0doe .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? I suspect you will refuse to answer this simple question, preferring to bring in other information or irrelevant details.Faustian (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many honours for cheap prostitutes (OUN)- see how IMT actually call - trial on major war criminals which orderd to kill more then 20.000.000 humansJo0doe (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked you 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? As expected, you refused to answer the question.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• DYK what “Austrian officer” in 1940 -Chief of the espionage detachment Abwehr II, Colonel Lahausen
• DYK what special tasks with which Lahausen’s has been entrusted in 1941 – special task units known under code name Brandenburg 800? IMT Vol VII p.269-272
• DYK what Jodl Confirm the Lahausen presenting in Hitler’s special train in September 1939 also his testimony regarding him.
• DYK what Lahausen testimony noted dozens and even hundreds of times in IMT???
• DYK what exist word Affidavit (as regards so-called “interview”) ?Jo0doe (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK that those details are irrelevent with respect to the fact that you misrepresented what [74] and [75] said when you tried to place into 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” [48]. "

Those documents are merely transcripts from an interview. Those documents do not conclude what you claim, that "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”. They merely describe what an Austrian officer said he overheard six years earlier. It is not final judgment, as you make it out to be. If you had written "in testimony to the IMT, Lahausen said that six years earlier he overheard Keitel tell Canaris that the Nazis and Ukrainian underground organization had the same goals" etc. I wouldn't have claimed you were dishonest. But instead, you wrote the above dishonest paragraph and then tried repeatedly to place it into the article (it was always reverted by someone).

As I explained earlier:

This is like using a transcript of a witness testimony from a trial in which a witness claims that person X killed person Y, and writing "according to documents presented to the Cook County Court, person X killed person Y."

Faustian (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You recommend me to engage in OR?

• DYK what no Austria exist since 1938 till 1945?

Are you confident with comparing Nuremberg – Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal with @Cook County Court@? Since you call details directly related to my citation as “irrelevant with respect to the fact” everything clear here with your attempts to put other in misconception and remove facts directly related to OUN(B) military formation @objectives@. Here I adjourn – as I’ve no plan to wasting time on explanations regarding clear visible facts Jo0doe (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's change the subject from your dishonesty to whether or not Austrians existed from 1938-1945. Or, you try to change the subject to one of, was every single witness who testified at the IMT accurate and/or truthful in every statement that he made? The testimony is interesting but it is the conclusions of the IMT that matter. Once again:

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? As expected, you refused to answer the question.Faustian (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So - I don't state what IMT deal with OUN crimes - too many honors for prostitutes. So I do not assess your question as appropriate. So I actually try to fix your historical mistake – i.e. claim for Austria in 1939. But unfortunately I unable to help you if you can’t find a referenced words – may be I’ll give you a line number - from top or from the bottom – which one you prefer? May be you not read Chapter 1 (p.15-45) of Institute of History by National Academy of Science work regarding Bandera and OUN(B) proponents attempts to stage ordered by Canaris appraisal in Galizia from November 1939 till September 1940 ?Jo0doe (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny how, when cornered, you can't answer the question but try talking about something else. You tried placing this into 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” [48]. "

And when I ask you to give a simple honest answer: "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?" you state "I don't state what IMT deal with OUN crimes - too many honors for prostitutes. So I do not assess your question as appropriate."Faustian (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IMT used Lahausen affidavit in hearing of Keitel Ribbentrop and Jodl, Lahausen deputy in Abwehr II affidavit also CONFIRMED what OUN (and their leaders Melnik and Bandera) actively worked for Canaris institution. It’s pity to note your illiteracy in regards Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal name, as also refusal to accept clearly noted facts. So your question is irrelevant and look like Does this black triangle is a red square. – So which answer you would like to get?Jo0doe (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking if the OUN worked for Canaris - I am asking 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?. That is is the relevent question with respect to your attempted placement of the below into 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” [48]. "

You accuse me of illiterarcy but don't appear able to read the question above. Conveniently.Faustian (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see you can not understood the words “Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal” – that why I use term illiteracy – as when the person can not read – it’s called illiteracy. So your question is similar to @Does this black triangle is a red square@ and does not have any relation to my clearly referenced edits originated from highest possible quality source in regards of punishment of Nazism and Fascism. Since you unable to read words “Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal” – I can’t help you. As far, as I assume, what you don’t know what after IMT there a lot of Trials (based on IMT documents) against less Major and small in scale War Criminals in many countries over Europe. Jo0doe (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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”

So, Faustians any objections on facts provided?

• Did you unable to find this words and citations in IMT Volumes on mentioned paged – Yes Or No?Jo0doe (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that you claim that according to IMT documents Nazis and OUN have the same objectives when the references you provide don't say that. They say what an Austrian said he overheard Keitel say 6 years earlier. So, you are dishonest about what the reference says. Whether Keitel was correct or not is irrelevent in this case - the fact is that you used the reference inapropriately. YOu then tried to cover up your dishonesty by trying to prove that Keitel was right using other sources. As if that makes your dishonesty about THIS source disappear. Again - simple yes or no question -

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?

No need to talk about black triangles or red squares, or to try to escape into incoherency The question is a simple one.Faustian (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Did you unable to find this words and citations in IMT Volumes on mentioned paged – Yes Or No?Jo0doe (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Did you read this stuff [76]?Jo0doe (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the entries in Canaris' diary, it took place on 12 September 1939. This order or directive which Ribbentrop issued and which Keitel transmitted to Canaris, Ribbentrop also giving it to Canaris during a brief discussion, was in reference to the organizations of National Ukrainians with which Amt Abwehr cooperated along military lines, and which were to bring about an uprising in Poland, an uprising which aimed to exterminate the Poles and the Jews The cooperation between Amt Ausland Abwehr and these people who numbered only about 500 or 1000, and what actually occured can be clearly seen from the diary

Did you see word "diary"? Yea or Nei?Jo0doe (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you didn't cite the above. Rather, you cited the IMT, page 21. And the above does not state that OUN and Nazis had the same goals nor that goal of OUN was the extermination of Jews. And btw, did the above information exist on IMT, pg. 21 as you cited? Yes or no?

And you still haven't answered the other question. You are just trying to change the subject. It isn't working.Faustian (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So you state what 12 September 1939 is a different from 12 September 1939 and Canaris, Ribbentrop and Keitel it's not the same persons as Canaris, Ribbentrop and Keitel while organizations of National Ukrainians it's not the same as Ukrainian organizations and to exterminate the Poles and the Jews it's not the same as farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed Great - I dont't oppose you - Just be calm and confident with yourself - everything is Ok. Jo0doe (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Moreover Lahousen is not scholar ber google - even we can't find him in WPedia - so it's a communists deceptions. No Lahausen ever exist - per WP. Just be confident Jo0doe (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

YOu are trying to run away from the fact that you misrepresented what the source actually said. Let me remind you:

You tried to put this into 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”

And I asked you:

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?

You are still avoiding an answer, preferring to talk about triangles and Lahousen.Faustian (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

New Lead

Hello,

This new lead clearly explains A) the duration of the UPA; B) the political alignment of the UPA.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The duration of the UPA is subject to debate as a military organisation it ended in 1949, though individual units survived all the way into the 1950s. As for political alignment, than again its subject to debate. --Kuban Cossack 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No individual units survived per UHVR decision - only OUN undeground - no units known only 2-5 personsJo0doe (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is true, you are still wrong. A military unit known as a Fireteam consists of 4 soldiers.Faustian (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Firearm should be part of squad – which also must be a part of other lager military unit. Other vice 2-5 armed persons without central command called “band” or “gang”Jo0doe (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any source for this claim?Faustian (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP article on FireteamJo0doe (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it require it to be part of a squad, though it usually is. There is no article on "band" in this context, buit gang clearly doesn't apply. What's it like to be almost always wrong?Faustian (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources of concerns

• (Ukrainian) Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 p.28

NOT WP:RS source

This I would agree is not a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5808-6.

Outdate, author known for luck of knowledge in Ukrainian history and “have to have visual impact” which not used for scholar works in history.

Your personal dislike is completely irrelevent. The author wrote the entry on Ukraine for Encarta, his Ph.D. in 'history is from Harvard, etc. etc. You in the past referred to his work as "manga for Canadian woodcutters", remember? Well, that's your personal problem. Keep your problems away from wikipedia, please.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not mine – As you remember - just one point from Deputy Head of the Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine.

hmmm...which institution is most notable, Harvard or Institute of History of NAtional Academy of Sciences of Ukraine? Can you prove that the latter is more notable? Historians may disagree, making such judgments is OR.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS policy - as more persons engaged in fact checking of specific work - as more it's reliable for WP. Could you confirm what Harvard

has more historians familiar with modern Ukrainian History (30-50) then Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine. 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You claim @his work as "manga for Canadian woodcutters", remember @– please provide a refs – I don’t remember when I call Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5808-6 as a "manga for Canadian woodcutters". So which your arguments in favor of 1988 publication vs 2000 – May be no such words in new one?Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you referred to Magocsi's work that way : [77] "Your link does not work. Information about UPA fighting against Germans is found in Magosci's Ukraine: a History (UPA fought pitched battles with Germans and Soviets over Carpathian mountain passes) and from this book written by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences : [43] which stated pg. 188 fall 1943 UPA lost 414, Germans 1500, among others. Do you have secret information that Magosci and the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences are UPA members? Ah, you will say that they based their statements on UPA sources. Well, that's your OR, as is your claim that Magosci and the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences historians don't know what they are doing, so no place for such claims here.Faustian (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For link - please use google and http://www.ushmm.org/ Bandentatigkeit im Bereich des W Bfh. Ukraine vom 21.6.-30.6.43. [Photograph #59475] Unfortunately, I prefer more academic publications rather then Manga for Canadian wood-cutters.

and to Canadian scholars generally that way (Subtelny is Canadian too): [78]. So you failed to aprovide prove what I call Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5808-6 as a "manga for Canadian woodcutters". Your repeated dishonesty noted213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies –

Source not specialized in history- so checking for historical quality is a doubt. Author is not known historian, nor has works about Ukrainian history for 40-s of XX.

Personal dislike. Per wikipedia policy, since his article was from a peer-reviewed journal, in English, and easily accessible on-line [[79], it's a good source.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::Your refusal to provide any arguments is noted. Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When you are proven wrong, all you have left is imitation, like in the kindergarten. Nice. Remember [Wikipedia:Reliable sources]: 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. So Zhukov's article stays.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• You failed to prove what the @Small Wars and Insurgencies@ as a Source which specialized in history and what the Author is known historian, nor has works about Ukrainian history for 40-s of XX.Remember WP:REDFLAG213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

outdated source based on questionable accuracy factual base.

Personal dislike again. Paul Robert Magocsi is a highly respected historian, much better known and highly regarded in the English-speaking world than any source that you have provided.

Your refusal to provide any arguments in favor of outdated source is noted. Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, nothing left for Jo0doe (talk) to say.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, provocative actions is noted. You failed to provide any any arguments in favor of outdated source 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Toynbee, T.R.V. (1954). Survey of International Affairs: Hitler's Europe 1939-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (page # missing). –

PAGE number please - not WP:V source – included by editor known for inserting citation without actually having a source in hands.

Such personal attacks! But making false accusation is your specialty: [80]. As usual, they are not true. Rejecting a source based on personal attacks against an editor and groundless assumption of bad faith does not comply with wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you are able to prove an existence of Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press? As far as I can see – not while deliberately including vanity press as WP:RS is noted. Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• James K. Anderson, Unknown Soldiers of an Unknown Army, Army Magazine, May 1968, p. 63 - : Source not specialized in history. Author is not known historian, nor has works about Ukrainian history for 40-s of XX.

Not sure about this one.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• L. Shankovskyy (1953). History of Ukrainian Army (Історія українського війська), p.32. –

Source by one of former UPA member widely criticized by historians community for reliability and fact accuracy. Based on based on questionable accuracy factual base.

Rejecting a source based on personal attacks against an editor and groundless assumption of bad faith does not comply with wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted. You omit what it is a opinions by majority of Ukrainian historiansJo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the "fact" that this is the opinion of the majority of historians. Just because you insist it is, doesn't make it so. You don't have the best record for honesty, you know: [81], [82]Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, provocative actions is noted. Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted. See wording below 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 - citation from Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine publication in which assessed the works of Potichnyy, Krokhmalyuk, Shankovskyy, Mirchuk 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yaroslav Hrytsak, "History of Ukraine 1772-1999" –

??? WP:RS? WP:NPOV?? May be WP:SYN

Any comments -? So why you add this stuffJo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some other editor added it, I believe. Given your record of dishonesty, I'm not inclined to delete it just because you don't like it.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we trace an edit history?213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• (1950) Russian Combat Methods in World War II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 111.

not WP:V source – questionable accuracy of citation - included by editor known for inserting citation without actually having a source in hands.

Rejecting a source based on personal attacks against an editor and groundless assumption of bad faith does not comply with wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You failed to provide any any arguments in favor of outdated and not WP:V source213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ihor Sundiukov, "The Other Side of the Legend: Nikolai Kuznetsov Revisited", 24 Jan. 2006. Retrieved on 18 December 2007

Who is Ihor Sundiukov? Is he is a historian?

• Ukrainian Weekly, July 28, 2002, written by Dr. Taras Kuzio

Community newspaper, author approach to history widely criticized by historians community.

Taras Kuzio is a highly respected historian even if you personally don't like him. There is a clear pattern here - Jo0doe doesn't like any source coming from the Ukrainian diaspora. Unfortunately for him, most of the English works are written by historians from the diaspora.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted. You omit what it is a opinions by majority of Ukrainian historiansJo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we know you believe that. The problem is you don't prove it. And your beliefs aren't worth much.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See above and read Український історичний журнал #2 from 1998 - article Історіографія та Джерелознавство213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Divide and Conquer: the KGB Disinformation Campaign Against Ukrainians and Jews. Ukrainian Quarterly, Fall 2004. By Herbert Romerstein

Wrong article: should be in anti-soviet counter propaganda

Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean we shouldn't include it.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Policy for Propaganda in WP:ISNOTJo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Prove that this is propaganda, please. Those are just your words.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See the post of author 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Leo Heiman, "We Fought for Ukraine - The Story of Jews Within UPA", Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964, pp.33-44.

not WP:RS, not WP:V – not adopted by historians & national community claim

Article is from peer-reviewed journal and describes one man's personal expereince. Are you calling Leo Heiman a liar?Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964 – a peer-reviewed journal? Could you prove such for community publication? Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you prove that it isn't? The Ukrainian Quarterly is included in libraries and reference databases such as this one: [83] along with other peer-reviewed journals.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you confirm this prove for 1964 - Did you prove what the fact what he listed along with other Jornals means what it itself a peer-reviewed in terms of history facts accuracy checking213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Friedman, P.. "Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, pp. 259–96, 1958–59".

outdated, not WP:V – not adopted by historians & national community claim – see more at

http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-05-01

http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/details.php?content=2008-01-01

What is "outdated" about an article describing UPA saving Jewish families? Just because it was written in the late 1950's it shouldn't be included? And don't forget, it's published in a very respected peer-reviewed journal.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

UPA saving Jewish families – could you prove it through academic sources mentioned above?Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in the peer-reviewed journal cited in the article Friedman, P.. "Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, pp. 259–96, 1958–59". Show me the wikipedia policy that states that all info has to be in the sources that Jo0doe (talk) like more.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

- See WP:V and WP:RS policy 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Burds 1997

more recent version available – see below

• Jeffrey Burds 2006 Soviet Agentura USSR history Sketches in after WWII years (1944-48):Published Moscow - New York “Modern history” Jeffrey Burds ISSBN-10: 0-9789937-0-5

Sovietology, - www.sovhistory.org tends to conspiracy and POV and inadequate statements like:

“In recent years many of materials and documents, which we collect by myself and Minayeva, again were classified and became unavailable for researchers as in Ukraine as in Russia – here is pre-history of ethnical conflict, which burned-out during presidential election in Ukraine in 2004”.

::: What  “ethnical conflict” he spoken about??? Jo0doe (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We know you don't like Burds either. So basically, according to you, all sources not written in Ukraine in the Ukrainian-language only shouldn't be counted (this insures that English-speaking editors will have a problem checking your "facts." Is that right?

You've written an interesting confession above, basically rejecting every source other than the ones you provided, almost all of which are inaccessible to the vast majority of people and almost none of which are written in English. How convenient. Sorry, as I've shown above, almost every one of the sources you have a problem with meet wikiepedia standards as reliable sources. And, indeed, according to wikipedia policy almost every one of those sources is prefereable to any of the ones that you have provided. 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.

You turn this policy upside-down, rejecting virtually every English-language source written by historians (check their CV's) from the top Western Universities (Harvard, Yale, etc.) in university-published books or peer-reviewed journals. In their place, you will have us use exclusively works written only in Ukrainian, often not accessible on-line, by institutions generally unknown in the English-speaking world. And we have to take your word for it that you are using those sources honestly, even though you have already been caught being dishonest here [84] and here [85] and here [86] (scroll down to read numbers 1-4). Very funny.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted. You omit what it is a opinions by majority of Ukrainian historiansJo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we know you believe that. The problem is you don't prove it. And your beliefs aren't worth much.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So actually – you agree with info about @ethnical conflict, which burned-out during presidential election in Ukraine in 2004@? Why you omit his affiliation to Sovitology Institution – namely - The Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University July 1997- Associate Fellow, Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University. Or you oppose to information published by Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine?Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you like changing the subject here but it's not working. Please prove, with reference, the claim that The Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University July 1997- Associate Fellow, Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University are "Sovietology Institutions" and one crucial step further, that if they are this makes their work not "history". Go ahead. Or would you rather discuss some other thing to avoid the topic?

See here [87] - and why you contardict with your own words - see below I'm certainly not opposed to information by the Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine 213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm certainly not opposed to information by the Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine I also follow wikipedia policy that states that English language works by scholars of a similar calibre (such as Burds, Magocsi, etc.) take priority.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS not noted the number of CV records but number of involved in quality checking (see Burds foreword to his agentura published in 2006 - he note what it's his sole work) and WP:RSUE -it noted assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality. You disttortion of WP policy is noted213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But thanks for confirming, above, that Burds is affiliated with one of the top universities in the West. Belonging to The Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University July 1997- and being an Associate Fellow, Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University prove that he is one of the top specialists in the world.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you prove @he is one of the top specialists in the world@ through WP:RS213.159.247.241 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you prove the work of the Institute of History of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is equal to that of Burds using WP:RS. If not we'll assume equality, and if equality is assumed than per WP:RSUE Burds' work takes precedence. As for Burds being one of the top specialists, his degree is from Yale, he's currently affiliated with Harvard and his specialty is "Modern Russian and Soviet History; 20th-century Ukraine; banditry & insurrection; Soviet secret police

" [88]. So he is affiliated with top univeristies in the world, and his work is focussed on areas directly related to UPA. Can you add 2+2?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. As you honestly noted Burds works target predominantly a banditry and Soviet contra-banditry acions and Soviet Secret Police. While UPA here is ad-hoc thema. While Institute of History of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences work specifically trageted this topic. Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or we once again should stick with Lithuanian names from Yale?Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=uciaspubs/editedvolumes http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D81639F930A25750C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all195.230.128.106 (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative history lesson. The question is if the other editor will read and understand it.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Sources to try to discredit Magocsi

Jo0doe (talk) has numerous times objected to the figure of 100,000 UPA fighters described in the article, referring to that number as a "hoax" (a deliberate attempt to distort, thus calling the author of those figures a liar).

The exact phrase in the article is "By the summer of 1944, estimates of UPA membership varied from 25-30 thousand fighters up to 100,000 soldiers." The latter number was cited in Magoscy, R. (1996). A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Jo0doe (talk) assailed this figure numerous times. This is just one of many examples:

Hoax – never was not 100,000 nor 80000 nor 60000 – info about hundreds thousands as hoax mentioned at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - namely Треба відкинути фантастичні цифри про чисельність повстанської армії – so I assume some of editors assumed WP as a trashbeen for propaganda trash? Jo0doe (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at what the article by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science, page 173, actually says: [89].

Òðåáà â³äêèíóòè ôàíòàñòè÷í³ öèôðè ïðî ÷èñåëüí³ñòü ïîâñòàíñüêî¿ àð쳿, ïî÷åðïíóò³ ç äåÿêèõ í³ìåöüêèõ äæåðåë, à ïîñëàòèñÿ íà “Çâåðíåííÿ” Ãîëîâíîãî êîìàíäèðà ÓÏÀ Â. Êóêà â³ä 14 æîâòíÿ 1952 ð., äå ãîâîðèòüñÿ, ùî ç ê³íöÿ 1942 ð. “ÓÏÀ âèðîñëà ó ïîíàä 100-òèñÿ÷íó äîáðå îðãàí³çîâàíó, âèøêîëåíó ³ îçáðî- ºíó áîéîâó ñèëó” 48. À öå çíà÷èòü, ùî ÷åðåç ëàâè ïîâñòàíñüêî¿ àð쳿 çà ïåð³îä ç ê³íöÿ 1942 ð. äî âåðåñíÿ 1949 ð., òîáòî äî ÷àñó ñàìîë³êâ ³äàö³¿ ÓÏÀ, ïðîéøëî ïîíàä 100 òèñ. ÷îëîâ³ê. Çàñëóãîâóþòü óâàãè òàêîæ äîñë³äæåííÿ Ï. Ñîäîëÿ (ÑØÀ), ÿêèé çàçíà÷àº, ùî “ñâîþ íàéâèùó ÷èñåëüí³ñòü ÓÏÀ îñÿãíóëà 1944-ãî, òà ùî öåé ð³âåíü í³êîëè íå ïåðåâèùóâàâ öèôðó 25—30 òèñ. âîÿê³â” 49. Íà ìîþ äóìêó, ³ç ïîðÿäêîì íàâå- . Ðîçáóäîâà òåðèòîð³àëüíèõ ñòðóêòóð ³ øòàá³â ïîâñòàíñüêî¿ àð쳿 äåíèõ öèôð — äåñÿòêè òèñÿ÷ — ñë³ä ïîãîäèòèñü, áî âîíè º íàéá³ëüø ïðàâäîïîä³áíèìè ³ â ö³ëîìó â³äïîâ³äàëè òîãî÷àñíèì ìàòåð³àëüíèì ìîæëèâîñòÿì ³ ðåñóðñàì âèçâîëüíîãî ðóõó.

Translation: "We must reject fantastic numbers about the numbers in the Insurgent army, taken from some German sources, and look to the announcement of UPA comander V. Kuk from October 14, 1952 where it is said, that "from the end of 1942 UPA until September 1949, in other words until the time of UPA's self-liquidation, through its ranks went more than 100,000 men. Following the attention of the findings of P. Sodol (USA), who emphasizes that "it's greatest numbers UPA had in 1944 and this number never exceeded 25-30 thousand warriors." In my opinion, in the orders of these numbers - tens of thousands - the evidence agrees because they are the most likely and in general agree with the contemporary material possibilities and resources of the liberation movement."

Nowhere above is the figure 100,000 cited from Magosci specifially referred to as "fantastic" or "propaganda trash" as Jo0doe (talk) claimed. Indeed, the author above himself indicated that his number of "tens of thousands" maximum was an "opinion." I don't know if Jo0doe (talk) was counting on others not reading the article due to the language, or not being able to access it because frequently the link is down, but Jo0doe (talk) has once again been exposed for drawing conclusions based on original research. To add to the negative nature of his dishonest portrayal of what was actually written in the source he cited, he used this false portrayal to insult another editor's work (or rather, the work of a highly respected author, Magocsi, whom the editor cited) as "propaganda trash."

I expect Jo0doe (talk) to respond to this with some more articles or irrelevent details, as he has done when his misuse of sources was demonstrated elsewhere: [90]Faustian (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to his deceptiveness being exposed again, he replies with more articles or irrelevent details below, just as I predicted:

Your try to deliberately leave another persons with a misconception is noted. As also a numerous misuse and distort the source citation. So actually in article info box – Strength Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000

So what’s editor actually omit – he did not point what “Calls” of UPA comander V. Kuk from October 14, 1952 were mentioned 100.000 - is OUN underground PROPAGANDA and hoax – dismissed by work (but not article as mentioned above) of Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science (i.e. date of creation, number of personnel and many other) .

Editor forgot to cite:

• Power of UPA was originated , obviously, not in the number of personnel, which, taking into account the mentioned above, can not be significant.

So editor omit detailed explanations by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and allegedly claim this factual based conclusion.

Yup, irrelevent details. Remember, this section is about your claim "info about hundreds thousands as hoax mentioned at p.173 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/index.htm - namely Треба відкинути фантастичні цифри про чисельність повстанської армії ". The above detail is irrelevent with respect to your claim. Because the above detail in no way supports you asseertion that pg. 173 states that the figure of 100,000 by MAgocsi is a "hoax" or "propagandda trash." That is your interpretation, falsely attributed to pg. 173 of [91]Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So still 100000K of UPA by summer of 1944 (times of maximum Strength) is "fantastic" and "propaganda trash" while your numerous dishonesty assumptions and conclusions on words which I actually does not include at this talk page is clearly noted.

You can claim that all you want - just please don't lie about what sources say by attributing your abuse to pg. 173 of [92]. Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover I noted your repeatedly attempt to hide-out similar hoaxes (figures) per WP:SYN In article

• 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 [12] [77] to 500,000 .[78]

As expected, you try to change the subject when your misuse of sources is demonstrated. This has been discussed already and I will be more than happy to discuss if you start a new topic.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Above dishonestly mentioned what officially Soviet archives states what Areas of UPA activity were depopulated and give figure 500,000 – which actually does not originated from soviet archive as claimed – moreover it’s claim not for 1944 till 1952 but for period between 1944 and 1949.

As expected, you try to change the subject when your misuse of sources is demonstrated. This has been discussed already and I will be more than happy to discuss if you start a new topic.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar story with

• 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)

As expected, you try to change the subject when your misuse of sources is demonstrated. This has been discussed already and I will be more than happy to discuss if you start a new topic.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In article

• 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 Western Ukraine

As expected, you try to change the subject when your misuse of sources is demonstrated. This has been discussed already and I will be more than happy to discuss if you start a new topic.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In source

• Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

In article 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

As expected, you try to change the subject when your misuse of sources is demonstrated. This has been discussed already and I will be more than happy to discuss if you start a new topic.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And many other similar accuracies. While the abusive tactic to insult own edit-habit to other editors is noted. As same as hide-out the clear mentioned facts trough incerting hundreds of non-related words and refusal to provide any reasonable arguments is noted. Jo0doe (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Empty insults from someone with proven pattern of dishonestly portraying sources: [93] and here [94] and here [95].Faustian (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• So any allegedly prove still not proved. While noted the refusal to accept the most moodern WP:RS conclusion without providing any fact excluding CV.Just a perfect example of @discussed already@ here [[96]] - so any reasonable anwers were provided - simple dozens of empty in sence words

While 100.000 still remained as hoax and fantastical - as concluded at p.173 and 174 and many time over the book laterJo0doe (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

“Honest translation or citation” or nothing new from interpreter which translated September as July [97]

So in January I mistakenly wrote September instead of July? Is that all you can find on me? Look harder, I've probably made a few more errors in my hundreds of edits. In contrast I don't have to hunt far to find your dishonesty. I happens in a large percentage of your edits.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So who is the author of “most likely” instead of “most reliable”. So now July – but habit of misinterpretation of source is not changedJo0doe (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We must reject fantastic numbers about the numbers in the Insurgent army, taken from some German sources, and look to the announcement of UPA comander V. Kuk from October 14, 1952 where it is said, that "from the end of 1942 UPA until September 1949, in other words until the time of UPA's self-liquidation, through its ranks went more than 100,000 men. Following the attention of the findings of P. Sodol (USA), who emphasizes that "it's greatest numbers UPA had in 1944 and this number never exceeded 25-30 thousand warriors." In my opinion, in the orders of these numbers - tens of thousands - the evidence agrees because they are the most likely and in general agree with the contemporary material possibilities and resources of the liberation movement. In source (omitted (and given as @irrelevent details@ given in bold) Power of UPA was originated, obviously, not from the numbers of personnel, which, taking into account the mentioned above, can not be significant. We must reject fantastic numbers about the numbers in the Insurgent army, taken from some German sources and look to the announcement of UPA comander V. Kuk from October 14, 1952 where stated , that from the end of 1942 ” UPA grew at more then 100000 well organized, trained and armed fighting force”. That means what from end of 1942 until September 1949, actually until the time of UPA's self-liquidation, through its ranks went more than 100,000 men. Attention also deserved the researches of P. Sodol (USA), who emphasizes that "it's greatest numbers UPA had in 1944 and this number never exceeded 25-30 thousand warriors. In my opinion, range of figures provided - tens of thousands – should be adopted, as they are the most reliable and in general match with the by the time material possibilities and resources of the liberation movement.

So differences are clear noted. Moreover, what actually omitted by editor and what means under words “mentioned above”: General Command of UPA failed to complete the transformation process of guerilla army into regular armed force. …luck of material resources, base for it creation, lack of necessary quantity of commander personnel. Have not the sufficient amount of heavy armament (guns and mortars) even not spoke about tanks and aviation, guerillas units were unable to conduct an open battles with overwhelming powers of enemies, thus mainly use guerillas-partisans tactics of warfare.

So nothing new as from author of dishonest source citation:

• 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

And those who translate OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “ Fights and activities during the war” as @instructions to its members concerning how the OUN should behave during the war@ So groundless extrapolation and insulting the words and actions (try to discredit Magocsi which not mentioned and never conducted Jo0doe (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

None of those details mention that as you stated the source claims that "100.000 still remained as hoax and fantastical - as concluded at p.173 and 174 ". I don't see 100,000 linked to the words fantastical and hoax in all of those details. You just added them to try to cover up your dishonesty.

Basically, we have a pattern of you drawing conclusions from what a source says, and then dishonestly attributing those conclusions to the source of the information for your conclusions, creating the false impression in the reader that the source says what actually you alone say. This is what you did here, too: [98] And you try in vain to conceal your dishonesty by spouting all sorts of irrelevent facts. It's not working.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You repeated abusive is noted.

Expected replay from an editor which challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution facts at IMT tribunal

You lie about me again.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews.

Isn't you Jo0doe (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) as also a historical documents by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and well known for numerous facts distortions and mistranslation.

In January I mistranslated July into September. For Jo0doe this means "numerous facts distortions and mistranslation".

So – actually did you object the conclusion by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science what tens of thousands (30K as highest as mentioned few line below and repeated many time over the book) – as most reliable.

I don't object to those conclusions. I object you your lying about the source by claiming that it states that MAgoci's figure of 100,000 is a "hoax" or "propaganda trash", in your words.Faustian (talk)

Wikipedia isn't about our opinions, it's about what the sources say. So the article includes a range of what the sources say. Both MAgoscsi and this work are reliable, so both numbers go into the article. Is that hard to understand?Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you object the conclusion what “fantastical figures” (more then reliable) must be rejected? Did you object what “more then 100000” means not UPA maximum Strength but the number of personnel which passed through UPA from 1943 till September 1949?Jo0doe (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The author didn't say what number was "fantastical." That's your interpretation. It could have been 200k. Moreover, the authors themselves stated "in my opinion" 25-30K, so they themselves weren't certain. As usual, you are making your own interpretation, and dishonestly using citations to give the readers the false impression that the sources support your personal opinion.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See long article talks with numerous examples – few of them were fixed (Glaring example – UPA propaganda poster) – many still not – as Subtelnyy “Western Ukraine” or Despite the stated opinion … etc

100000 of UPA members is hoax – regardless of source – I don’t care about 1995 Magoci or 1988 Subtelnyy.

See V.Kuk propaganda claim at p.173 and note how it was described.

Power of UPA was originated, obviously, not from the numbers of personnel, which, taking into account the mentioned above, can not be significant. . Kuk from October 14, 1952 where stated , that from the end of 1942 ” UPA grew at more then 100000 well organized, trained and armed fighting force”. That means what from end of 1942 until September 1949, actually until the time of UPA's self-liquidation, through its ranks went more than 100,000 men.

On his opinion - he agreed with Sodol, but he confident with non significant number of personnel. Once again noone of German source stated what UPA has more then 80K. See V>kosyk Book Jo0doe (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that despite using page 173 as a source for your claim that UPA number of 100k was a "hoax" or "fantastical", pg. 173 didn't say that at all. You cannot choose which source is better based on personal preference or personal research: that violates OR policy. Since legitimate sources differ, we just report the different numbers. Personally, the argument by the Institute of History sounds quite reasonable and the number of 30K-40k (which Subtelny cites) sounds like the right one. But unlike you I play by the rules, and the rules are clear that we should report all figures.Faustian (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE

• 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.

So including a Rusins community historians passed through figures with unknown origin in the way of Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 you deliberately put visitors in misconception – as it’s believe what at some period of times UPA has 100,000 – so it’s exact hoax.

Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000. Do estimates vary from 15,000-100,000? Yes or no? If there is an estimate of 100,000 and one of 15,000 than the statement is correct that estimates vary from 15,000-100,000. Please do not accuse editors or authors of lying (hoaxing) when all they do is report what is cited.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Jo0doe (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Prove with reliable sources WP:RS that Magocsi represents a minority viewpoint. Indeed, according to his biography his qualifications place him in the forefront of English-language scholarship. In contrast, the work of authors whose articles are unavailable in English take second-place according to WP:RSUE. So applied strictly, the stuff you present is a minority viewpoint.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

May I once again remind you WP:policy which you repeatedly broke and misuse – WP:RS is not based on biography or CV records but on number of persons engaged in quality checking. WP:RSUE expect the availability of work of same caliber – in this specific case – work by Institute of History by National Academy of Science. Moreover I highly recommend to use Poles WP article about Magoci – it has more information regarding his Rusins origin and belonging. However it’s nice to see what you nominate Ukraine as minority viewpoint vs Diaspora as majority – so which criteria and estimation prosess you’ve used to reach such conclusion Jo0doe (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what number of people engaged in quality checking means? It's the number of external reviewers checking the article, not number of authors of that article. So an article or book with 10 authors is not more reliable than an article/book with three authors, and both are not more reliable than an article written by a single author just based on number of authors. You do know that, right?

Can you prove that more people have scrutinized your source available in the Ukrainian language only than have scrutinized Magocsi's work?

As for minority/majority viewpoint, it depends on the context. Burds (is he diaspora?), Magocsi, Subtelny are the mainstream scholars in the English-speaking milieau with respect to Ukraine. The articles you present are interesting and useful and need to be incorporated - but they are also unknown in the English world and thus by definition not mainstream. Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [99]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [100]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [101], only 18 of which are after 1990. Magocsi studied at Princeton and Harvard, known everywhere in the English-speaking world. How about the authors of your work?

Perhaps on Ukrainian wikipedia Magocsi may be a minority viewpoint. Perhaps not - forgive me if I don't take your word for it. But certainly not in the English-speaking world which English wikipedia is a reflection of, as I have shown you above.Faustian (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• “definition not mainstream”. Could you provide ref on mentioned by you WP definition? Is there any Googled criteria? So accordingly to your groundless and senseless approach everyone which able to write word Ukraine in English has more reliability then National Academy of Science of Ukraine? You erroneously extrapolate WP to real life – see WP:RS - number of persons engaged in quality checking – or on fingers :History Department by National Academy of Science vs single person specialized on banditry (Burds) and Rusins history (Magoci)Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will show you step-by-step. Hopefully you will understand. Look at the wikipedia page [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [102]. 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: [103]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [104]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [105], 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 [106]. 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.

Thanks for helping me clarify, through this conversation, the fringe nature of your sources for the purposes of English wikipedia. It's a productive conversation.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So – here an EXELLENT conclusions

• works Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences accordingly to Faustians googlescholar has fringe nature. Tremendous.

But you forget to cite (as always) to one small detail – a similar caliber of English-language ones. So you appoint Burds as Institute of History of the USA Academy of Sciences and Magoci as Institute of History of the Canadian Academy of Sciences- based on their CV. Absolutely exiting – however if here engaged a Faustinas - Thanks for helping me clarify – I can’t add any more comments. You (Faustians) wins – I can’t oppose to your conclusions and visions – as such will be hurt for yourJo0doe (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You have reading problem. I wrote: "Thanks for helping me clarify, through this conversation, the fringe nature of your sources for the purposes of English wikipedia. "

Thank you for demonstrating Cherry picking again. That is your approach for the sources. Try to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines in the future. I will repeat the lesson for you, perhaps you will rad it better this time, or will ask someone who can read, to read it for you:

I will show you step-by-step. Hopefully you will understand. Look at the wikipedia page [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [107]. 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.

When I went to google scholar, I saw that Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [108]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [109]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [110], 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 [111]. 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.

Thanks for helping me clarify, through this conversation, the fringe nature of your sources for the purposes of English wikipedia. It's a productive conversation.

As a side note - I don't object to the Institute of History's work being included. I just follow wikipedia policy that places its work well behind Burds or Magosci who have been much more scrutinized, reviewed, are more accessible, etc. in the English-speaking world. Sorry if wikipedia policy offends you or if it is difficult for you to seperate the message from the messanger.Faustian (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)