Jump to content

Talk:Banderite

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

Request for comment; should this Wikipedia article have biographical information about Stepan Bandera

[edit]

The consensus is to retain this information. GenQuest's comment is representative of the consensus: "Stand-alone articles do indeed need enough background information about the main player(s) to get oriented and understand the situation and origins of the article subject matter."

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I (Yulia Romero) and Poeticbent are currently embroiled in a dispute about this Wikipedia article. Per Wikipedia:CFORK I believe that it should not contain any biographical information about Stepan Bandera. Poeticbent (it seems to me) believes that this article should contain any biographical information Bandera because "none of this information - strictly about Banderites history - is in the Bandera article". I think that Poeticbent should insert this information in the article about Mr. Bandera or discuss this on the talkpage there. Basically want to know if the current (Saturday 17 February 2018) "History section at Banderites is content forking or not. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly, there's a major case of misunderstanding here with regard to what a stand alone article in Wikipedia is. There's no repetition of Bandera's biography here, just the explanation of the background to Banderites' name and purpose. Poeticbent talk 19:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the current "history" section of this Wikipedia article there is no extra information that was not already in the article about the "explanation of the background to Banderites' name and purpose" but only biographical information about Stepan Bandera (which should only be in the Wikipedia article of this person). Poeticbent defence here above is a pack of lies. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only "explanation of the background to Banderites' name and purpose" in current "history" section is already mentioned in the lead of this article (The term Banderites was also used by the Bandera followers themselves, and by others during the Holocaust by bullets, and the massacres of Poles and Jews in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by OUN-UPA in 1943–1944.). Actually the crimes of Bandera's followers is mentioned in the lead of this article two times. What is the point of mentioning it three times surrounded by biographical information about the person Bandera? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Poeticbent objects to me, or preferable another editor, removing all biographical information about the person Bandera from the current "history" section? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoa ... "pack of lies", you said. Slow down, will you? I do not actually believe in the neutrality of your revert war at the Banderites article. Being an active Ukrainian Wikpedian interested in the Svoboda and the Right Sector coverage in Wikipedia, you blanked the history of the Banderite movement, along with reliable third party peer-reviewed sources, but why? — Is that because that history included information about the spread of antisemitic, racist, and fascist propaganda among the ordinary peasants and other Ukrainians by the Bandera faction? Poeticbent talk 19:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself blanked the history along with reliable third party peer-reviewed sources about crimes committed by Poles in the second world war. Apparently you don't believe in the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I never made one edit aimed at promoting Svoboda and Right Sector. Unlike you who tried to whitewash Polish crimes with this edit. Please show me the edits in which I promote Svoboda and the Right Sector. I only edit the articles Svoboda and the Right Sector to keep them wp:NPOV.

And do you or don't you agree that the current "history" section contains biographical information about the person Bandera? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did not edit Right Sector for more then 1 year and it has been more than 2 years I edited Svoboda.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I agree with Poeticbent; there's no good reason that info isn't included here. Otherwise, the entire article may as well be merged back into the article about Bandera where discretionary sanctions apply. Yulia Romero is clearly a Ukrainian nationalist and I think her partisanship has clouded her objectivity; I don't think she should edit in this space, at all. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, Yulia Romero user is a male contributor. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 07:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Have to agree with Poeticbent (talk · contribs) on this one. Stand-alone articles do indeed need enough background information about the main player(s) to get oriented and understand the situation and origins of the article subject matter. A separate article about the subject is not hurt by that, and the current article is improved by the inclusion. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Low-quality article

[edit]

While most of the crimes attributed to OUN/UPA are true, this is a complex topic and the biggest challenge is the actual attribution of inspiration for these crimes to Bandera himself. This article however is a completely ahistorical mess, a mix of low-quality sources with clearly visible bias and a desperate attempt to attribute all OUN-UPA crimes to Bandera, while ignoring the simple fact that Bandera himself was arrested by Germans and spent most of the war isolated in a concentration camp. This topic is well explored in Wikipedia articles on OUN-B and I believe this article should not repeat whatever is written there already with much more reliable sources, and if there's any reason for it to stay is to focus purely on the meaning of the banderites term, its usage during the war and nowadays. Cloud200 (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about changing of the article topic

[edit]

Should we change the topic of the article to the propaganda term or keep it to the Ukrainian right-wing organizations from the interwar period until present? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a suggestion by a few recent editors to change the topic of the article from describing the "members of an assortment of right-wing organizations" to describing the propaganda term. Please discuss. When any consensus is reached please ask for unprotection of the page. In this case the article may look like this version Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much activities yet. I am thinking that changing the topic of the article is a good idea. Currently it looks like a low quality WP:POVFORK of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Changing the topic to the propaganda term would make it useful. Alternatively the article can be about Ukrainian right-wing and nationalist organizations from the inter-war time to modern days. But in this case the current content including the title is very biased. Any other ideas? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article is that in current form its title clearly does not match the content. Instead of describing the term the article tells about the history of the OUN (b), in a form that raises many questions about its objectivity, as we can see above. I believe that whole the article should be rewritten in the format that was originally conceived: 1. Description of origin of the term. 2. The history of its usage from the moment of its creation to our time - both in the nationalist and propaganda sense. That is, to develop the article for what it was intended for. All off-topic questions should be left for other relevant articles. The old version [1] looks like it's more suitable for such purpose Alexx Cognac (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) You are going to have to more thoroughly describe the question in order to get real outside feedback. One of the choices is changing the topic to "the propaganda term" but the meaning of that that is not explained in the RFC or even in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: mean do we want to develop article based on This version (about the colloquial name or That version (about organizations) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sounds like an improvement. I’d suggest moving to “banderite,” as a common noun, and don’t forget an article is typically about a thing, not about a name (I can’t find that perfect guideline to quote at the moment). —Michael Z. 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content could be filled out a bit with Kolomoiskyi’s 2014 “Zhidobandera” trolling and the 2019 “I am Bandera” campaign, if anyone can find a decent article or two. Also mention variants banderas, banderlogs (is bandе́rovtsy actually Ukrainian, as stated in the current intro?). —Michael Z. 15:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the expertise to know for sure, but at first glance the current article appears to have horrendous NPOV problems. As I understand it, the term refers to many different groups and them and their activities over nearly a century of history. At first glance, the current article looks a search/selection for the worst things that any of them ever did ever and then describing / characterizing them characterizing them based on that selective selection. The This version described as being about the colloquial name option seems better in that respect but has a lot less content.North8000 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose changing the article from its current historical discussion of the Banderites. Banderites are clearly a historical group, that are being referred to by the police in the Ukraine. We need an article on the historical reference to Banderites to understand the modern usage. If anything, we could do a section within this article discussing *modern usage*, or if its worth it a separate article on the current movement. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current scope of the page. I agree with Deathlibrarian that it needs to be a narrowly defined historical subject, as described in the body of the page. However, it does not hurt to also mention the usage as a propaganda term. The lead should be modified accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Deathlibrarian. Idealigic (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting article or restoring the version about the name) (Also brought here by bot): I also don't know much about this topic, but the current article seems like it would belong better either as part of the OUN or Bandera article and has significant NPOV problems. Even if it becomes about the modern and historical usage of the term, why would that not fit better in a general article about the Ukrainian far-right? Hentheden (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it the way it is! It's not "propaganda", banderists were and are a real thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.248.215 (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted lies

[edit]

This is the question of why, according to the author of this article, the term "Bandera" began to be used as propaganda in the Soviet Union, and not when, but in 1942.

Question: where could this propaganda be conducted? Why should it be conducted in a multinational state, where one careless decision could lead to the collapse of the state? 85.95.189.210 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of torchlight procession

[edit]

@KetchupSalt: According to MOS:IRELEV, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. I can't see how a picture of a torchlight procession in honour of Bandera in 2018 is relevant for an article which is about the Banderites of the 1940s and the use of the term in Russian propaganda. I'd also like to know why you called my removal of the picture "Whitewashing". Rsk6400 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see how a picture of Banderites is relevant to an article on Banderites? KetchupSalt (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reliable source for your claim that the people in the pic are Banderites ? According to the article, the Banderites were active about 70 years before the picture was taken. You didn't answer my question. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps the article should be updated to reflect that followers of Stepan Bandera are still active in Ukraine, rather than pretending the opposite. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, but please remember that all claims made must be covered by reliable sources. And we should also keep in mind that people who honour Bandera may do so for a wide range of motives - ranging from simply supporting Ukrainian independence to supporting far-right ideologies. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information about the Banderite crimes

[edit]

@Lvivske please self-revert, you removed informations about the Banderite crimes against Jews and Poles. Let me remind you about WP:NOTCENSORED Marcelus (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this is a question of NOTCENSORED. I think it's rather a question of due weight, see WP:DUE. While Bandera's group doubtlessly committed serious crimes, those crimes have also been used and exaggerated by Soviet and current Russian propaganda to denigrate Ukraine. The way we cover them should be informed by historians, not by Putin's war propaganda. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400 what was here exaggerated exactly? You need to be specific Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call any part of the (former) article "exaggerated". WP:DUE is not about single exaggerated claims, it's about balancing information according to what reliable sources say. I simply stated that I don't agree with the rationale (i.e. NOTCENSORED) you gave. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so elaborate on WP:DUE Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that passage had two issues: one it said "they referred themselves as B during the Holocaust and XYZ" - this was shoehorning in the Holocaust for buzzword sake, since the term obviously predated WW2 and continued on after to today. The rest of that passage (in footnotes?) starts rambling on about why this and that were wrong (re: "he [Portnov] forgets to mention"), that is, its opinion based arguments that really shouldnt be in an intro. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt though. I removed off topic stuff. What do you want me to put back exactly? LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims please

[edit]

The only one given relates to just one of several pogroms (4,000 Jews killed). What are the total figures circulated by various historians, relating to Jews, Poles, Romanians and all other ethnic groups affected?

ESPECIALLY since the claim by Putin that "most of the 1.5 million Jewish victims killed during the Holocaust in Ukraine were murdered by the Banderites", figures need to be offered, analysed, and compared. Staying silent and vague is NOT an acceptable option. "Due weight" of this or that particular number is not easy to decide on and not any single editor's business: give them all, commented and with caveats, and let the interested people - editors and users alike - use their own judgement and discernment.

PS: Whatever happened 80 years ago, the current war has very little if anything to do with that. Peoples evolve. History, however, must be written and understood, not swept under the carpet. Arminden (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

most of the 1.5 million Jewish victims killed during the Holocaust in Ukraine were murdered by the Banderites, this number is of course factually wrong. Less than one million of Jews died on the territory of modern Ukraine. OUN-B and other Ukrainian nationalist groups had a direct involvement only in section of these killings. Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1.5 million figure is that given by the US Holocaust Museum. But I can't find a source for the Putin quote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 mln is the number of Jews killed by the Germans and their allies on the Soviet territory from 1940, so including Jews of from the prewar eastern Poland. And while some of the killings can be attributed fully or partially to the Ukrainians collaborators, not all of them were associated with the revolutionary wing of the OUN, ie OUN-B, Bandera fraction. Marcelus (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto

[edit]

I do not think Bandera or anybody else ever wrote a document with the title "Ukrainian National Revolution". This was more like an idea of an Ukrainian fascist state, which Bandera certainly shared, see e.g. this article on the Rossoliński-Liebe's book. What definitely existed was the document with the title "The Struggle and Activities of the OUN in Wartime" from 1941. I am pretty sure I saw it before, and it said indeed that Jews must be eliminated, but I can not right now find the text of this document. Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

There was a discussion about this a couple years ago, but that doesn't seem to have reached a conclusive consensus, so I'm bringing it up again: I think the article's scope should be changed to be about the insult "banderite", with a section explaining the background of historical actual banderites. This would be along the lines of the article Fascist (insult).

All the stuff explaining the history of OUN-B is just duplication of the actual OUN article, and doesn't need to be repeated here in such depth. Thoughts? I think it would improve the article to shift the scope and not talk about two main topics at once. HappyWith (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed OMGSteven (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying Bandera

[edit]

@Professor Penguino: You twice added a qualification to Bandera, once "far-right", and then "ultranationalist". You explained neither of your additions and didn't comment on the reason I gave for reverting ("undue"). While of course we will be able to find a lot of sources supporting those qualifications, I still hold that those qualifications are undue here, because we could also find a lot of other qualifications, depending on the source we use. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I still hold that those qualifications are undue here, because we could also find a lot of other qualifications, depending on the source we use." Bandera was primarily a far-right ultranationalist. Such a qualification would make sense to be included because those were his core beliefs. As for me "explain[ing] neither of [my] qualifications", they are pretty self-explanatory, are they not? Professor Penguino (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people see him primarily as a national hero fighting against foreign (Polish and Russian) occupation. Why choose one qualification over the other ? I said you didn't explain your "additions", meaning that an edit summary should give other editors at least a hint at why you did something. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people see him primarily as a national hero fighting against foreign (Polish and Russian) occupation." Lol yes, I'm sure "some people" do. "Some people" also think the world is flat. It doesn't (or shouldn't) influence Wikipedia's objective coverage of it. You can't just ignore multiple reliable sources calling Bandera an ultranationalist. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is a misunderstanding of what the policy on WP:DUE is. Otherwise he can go to Talk:Stepan Bandera and suggest to remove the "far-right" qualifier because "some people" in the world see him as a hero (which also does not mean he cannot be far-right). Mellk (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This article completely fails to point out that Banderism is alive and well in modern-day Ukraine, it's not just a "propaganda term", there are plenty of photos with evidence of UPA/OUN flags and pictures of the genocidal criminals Bandera and Shukhevych being paraded by nationalists. Noxian16 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:SYNTH. Where is the source (reliable, not just Russian propaganda) connecting modern Ukrainian patriotism with genocidal crimes ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the photo from Wikimedia I provided, alongside many other photos. What clearer source is there than a photo showing Ukrainian nationalists waving UPA flags with pictures of Bandera? This genocide denial and double standard from Wikipedia is disgusting but sadly not surprising. Noxian16 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noxian16: I had a reason to recommend that you read WP:SYNTH: Yes, Bandera collaborated with the Nazis, he had a fascist world view and his followers committed mass murder (whether this can be called genocide is not so sure). But your logic seems to be: Bandera committed genocide, so all people who admire him today can be connected with genocide. For exactly that idea, you'd need a source. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond pictures of neo-Banderites waving flags and sporting various forms of reactionary patches, there are also things like Stepana Bandery Avenue in Kiev, the statue of Stepan Bandera in Ternopil and Stepan Bandera Street (Lviv). Beyond Bandera himself, Ukraine also has monuments and streets dedicated to various Hitlerites. Kyiv City Council renamed General Vatutin Avenue to Roman Shukhevych Avenue in 2017. Kalush has a street named after Galizia Division Hauptsturmführer Dmytro Paliyiv.
The notion that Ukraine doesn't have a fascism problem is a common theme in NATO propaganda. Even NYT recently felt the need to address the fact that pictures of Ukrainian troops with Nazi symbols keep popping up. In typical Western liberal fashion the problem according to the NYT isn't that Ukraine trains and arms fascists, but rather that this "risks fueling Russian propaganda".
Finally I will point out that a source being propaganda does not mean that source isn't reliable. WP considers RFE/RL to be reliable, despite it being a propaganda outlet funded by the CIA. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noxian16: You might also want to take a look at WP:GS/RUSUKR. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banderite&oldid=1216552695"