Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War

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

Zbrucz, Ukrainian POWs[edit]

Zbrucz is a Polish name. Many Ukrainian POWs died in Polish camps. There exists their monument in Kraków-Rakowiec, I believe. Xx236 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very interesting to have more information on the fate of Ukrainian POWs and Polish camps. --Lysy (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus a photo of the monument. And more references. And more information... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the file has been removed: Kraków (PAP) - na cmentarzu Rakowickim W Krakowie Premier RP Jerzy Buzek i Premier Ukrainy Wiktor Juszczenko odsłonili pomnik upamiętniający ukraińskich ... It happened Sept. the 1st, 2000. The best way is to visit the cemetary, but I'm a long way from Kraków. Xx236 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to standardize on a spelling - either Lviv or Lwow - both are used in the article

I'd be glad if someone could tell what Ukrainians think nowadays about Pilsudski's idea of intermarum ("Miedzymorze"). I consider it as sth what could save both Poland and Ukraine from Soviets, but the latter didn't trust... how does it look nowadays? Wasn't it a mistake? --213.199.192.226 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems also that many Poles (the followers of Dmowski) were also opposed to Pilsudski's ideas, even though they would clearly have saved both countries much misery.

I would add that I've made a minor change to the article, providing the context of the majority of eastern Galicia's population having been Ukrainian (the 1910 Austrian census showed about 60% Ukrainians, 25% Poles, 10% Jews) even though the city of Lviv/Lwow itself was about 80% Polish and Jewish. Although there were large pockets of Polish settled areas the territory as a whole was mostly Ukrainan.


Location Eastern Galicia, Poland[edit]

It became Polish after victory over Western Ukraine. Therefore, it should either state Eastern Galicia and nothing else or Eastern Galicia, Western Ukrainian Republic/Poland. Thank you.

You mean regained by Poland? As this area existed in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prior to the partitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.139.166 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice, professional war?[edit]

"In contrast to the brutality typical of the struggles occurring in former parts of the Russian empire, the Polish-Ukrainian war was conducted by disciplined and professional forces on both sides, resulting in relatively minimal civilian deaths and destruction..." Except for the occasional pogrom, etc... Unreferenced claims of "relatively minimal civilian deaths and destruction" (what's that implied civilian death minimum that is presumably OK? relative to what?) would be best replaced by actual figures of civilian deaths, levels of destruction, etc. Doprendek (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense by Faustian[edit]

"During this time, according to Italian and Polish reports, Ukrainian forces enjoyed high morale (an Italian observor behind Galician lines stated that the Ukrainians were fighting with the "courage of the doomed") while many of the Polish soldiers, particularly from what had been Congress Poland, wanted to return home because they saw no reason to fight against Ruthenians over Ruthenian lands." East Galicia was a historical Polish land. Asc.grean (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the complete reference. East Galicia was populated by 60% Ukrainians, 25% Poles and Poles from Congress Poland (not Poles from East Galicia), according to the report, saw themselves as fighting Ruthenians (Ukrainians) for Ruthenian land and wanted to go home. You can verify what I added through googlebooks here, it's on page 51, bottom of the first paragraph. as for history, it depends on POV - it was historically Polish, Austrian, Hungarian, Lithuanain, and Ruthenian. Remember the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia? Faustian (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
East Galicia was old conquered land, but not really Polish. --Юе Артеміс (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg monarchy[edit]

In background section a claim is laid that the Austrian monarchy was extremely sympathetic towards Ruthenians who for purpose of an evil conspiracy started to be called Ukrainians. It seems that whoever was creating the section mixed both Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria along with the West Ukrainian People's Republic as well as brought the 1848 revolution to the basket. I only wonder why not to start from the succession of the Galician crown in the 13th century when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland invaded the Ruthenian Kingdom. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polish–Ukrainian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish city names if there were controlled by the Poles[edit]

User:Faustian, I think it is fair to use Lwów if the city had a majority Polish population, and was held by Polish forces (it was a Polish city). This is nothing more then persistent anti-Polish bias where you deny the fact that the city was overwhelmingly Polish during this time. Similar in regards to Russian speaking areas in Ukraine today, just complete denial of facts. --E-960 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Lviv, the population in 1910 was approximately 60% Polish and 17% Ukrainian. --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You also used Polish names for Ukrainian-controlled cities such as Drohobych. It is a wikipedia article and we use modern English-language words for cities (for example, the article about History of Bratislava does not use "Pressburg", article about History of Vilnius does not use Wilno even though there were fewer Lithuanians in Vilnius than there were Ukrainians in Lviv). Your accusations of "anti-Polish bias" are personal attacks and inappropriate.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that these borders and names were fluid. Names changed. So did populations. My maternal grandfather, who self identified as Ukrainian, was a corporal in the Astro-Hungarian Empire's army. You folks need to stand down and use both languages for their names. Just a suggestion to avert a war. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should treat this like we treat Vilnius (which was onced much less Lithuanian than Lviv was Ukrainian). Mention the old name but use the modern one.Faustian (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can all get along. E-960? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I write all of this from a neutral point of view. My parents married in 1948. He was Polish descent (his mother's parents came over in the 1870s, my paternal grandfather came over in 1912). She was of Ukrainian descent. Each of the families used a variant of 'he's Polish, but he's good' and vice versa.

Faustian, ok pls be the first one to change the statement Lwów pogrom in this article to Lviv pogrom, somehow this is the only place you think it should have the polish name? Blatant anti-polish bigotry.E-960 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been kindly asked not to engage in personal attacks and have now done so. I don't care what "Lwow pogrom" is called. If the specific event is commonly referred to as such, it probably ought to be the name for it (for similar reasons, things like treaties retain their original names). I don't have to research that, but if you find that "Lwow pogrom" is not a common name for what happened in 1918, go ahead and change it.Faustian (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-960, I wanted to let you know that your latest changes are appropriate and to thank you for them. "Lwow Eaglets" is the specific name for those volunteer soldiers and it is proper to use Lwow in that context. Przemysl is of course the modern English-language name for that city.Faustian (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, let us mark this day—consensus on something… hehe. --E-960 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oil - Dubious[edit]

I can't find data on oil reserves, but Mitchell's European Historical Statistics, 1750-1970, pp. 373-374 gives data on oil extraction. For 1913, he gives the following estimates:

Austria (including Eastern Galicia): 1,115,000 metric tons.
Romania (including the Ploesti fields): 1,848,000 metric tons.
Russian Empire (including Baku, outside Europe, and other fields in Europe): 10,281,000 metric tons.

While Eastern Galicia was an important oil-extracting region, it wasn't the most important in Europe at the time. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two cite errors[edit]

Please correct. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please correect. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POW camps[edit]

Conditions in Polish POW camps were bad, similar to the conditions in camps for Poles in Western Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young defenders of the Łyczakowski Cemetery, who lost their lives defending the city[edit]

Please explain.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hedging statements/weasel words[edit]

Faustian, pls stop edit warring, your edits were reverted. If you have an issue then pls disscuss on the talk page. However, what you are doing is a clear example of inserting hedging statements and/or weasel words into the article (this before every statement which details atrocities committed by Ukrainians on against Poles). This is a blatant and unsubstantiated POV push. The original reference sources cited for those long-standing statements do not say these were ALLEGED atrocities, but simply say that they occurred. Example, you changed this sentence from "In Chodaczkow Wielki, 4 Polish girls were murdered by Ukrainian soldiers and their bodies mutilated." to "In Chodaczkow Wielki, Poles claimed that 4 Polish girls were murdered by Ukrainian soldiers and their bodies mutilated." However, the source says, "In Chodaczków Wielki near Tarnopol, Ukrainian soldiers murdered 4 Polish girls in May 1919." nothing about alleged "Polish claims". Perhaps Piotrus or Volunteer Marek can assist with topic, since they both are familiar with this historical period. But, at this point you did not show any evidence that those specific examples where only allegations, thus there is no justification for those edits. --E-960 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable easily accessible English-language source that explicitly states that neither side engaged in systematic or largecale massacres but that both sides made claims about massacres against each other. Now from Polish wiki there is info from Polish historians that repeats these allegations, contradicting the summary of the reliable English-language source. While I do not call to remove this info, it makes sense to at least describe it as claims, given that it is controversial and not settled that such events occurred. I treat Ukrainian claims the same way. I have made the wording accurate: Polish sources state..." "Ukrainian sources state". Otherwise the article contradicts itself. Moreover, the Polish source does not appear to be accessible online so it can't even be verified. Faustian (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek the information about alleged Polish atrocities that you removed comes directly from Volodymyr Temnytsky a notable and historical source in his own right. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian People's Republic, and member of the delegation Ukrainian People's Republic to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Later on, On May 24, 1930, he was appointed by the Lviv Voivode Wojciech Agenor Gołuchowski to the Lviv Provisional City Council. His claims are noteworthy and should not be blanked.Faustian (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that both sides engaged in propaganda, and that some of the claims were indeed exaggerated. However, based on the sources the examples which were listed (both sides) appear to be the few instances where soldiers did abuse civilians or prisoners. So, I don't have a problem with a statement that says that in the majority of situations both sides avoided civilian casualties, and say that in a few instances there were abuses, but to just add "claim" in front of ever example (whichever side you are talking about) is not the right approach. Also, I'm not a big fan of listing every individual instance of abuse, as you may recall my arguments form the Blue Army page, because it creates issues of undue weight and proportionality. --E-960 (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "state" rather than "claim" which seems to be more neutral. Why was this removed? In both cases (Ukrainian and Polish allegations) every alleged atrocity is not listed.13:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It's more neutral, but still you are ignoring this statement in the text "The commission, which included representatives from Italy and France, established that in just three districts 90 murders were committed on civilians besides robberies." so atrocities however minimal did occur, so to just carelessly add "claim" or "state" to every statement on atrocities is not accurate, because you have to prove that these were just propaganda claims, at the moment those examples in the sources cited are represented a fact not claim. Again, perhaps other editors who are familiar with this topic can weight in. --E-960 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Word "state" does not imply propaganda claim. It is straightforward description of what was stated. We have different sources stating different things, so for each thing we write that this source stted this, that source stated that. One source stated atrocities did not occur. Another source stated this occurred here and there.Faustian (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:PRIMARY so you need to find secondary sources which discuss this info. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official document by government representatives and as such notable on its own, and is noted as such. Also it is not a primary source, as it is not an eyewitness account but a summary by the government officials. You are suggesting we censor an official statement and report by the Ukrainian foreign minister and the Ukrainian justice minister about atrocities, from a section about atrocities, because you consider this official statement/report to be a "primary source." Faustian (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it’s a official document or not is irrelevant. And there’s no such thing as “notable on its own”. If it’s notable, it’s discussed in secondary sources, so you can use those. If it’s not, then it’s not notable. We’re not “censoring” anything, we’re simply following policy. And that it’s a primary source is pretty straightforward and it’s not me that “considers” it as such. It’s just simply what it is. Volunteer Marek 21:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the official report on atrocities, the topic of this section, written by the foreign and justice ministers of the Ukrainian government and submitted to the Paris Peace Conference. You don't think that this is notable? Also it is clearly not a primary source. WP:PRIMARY states that a primary source is "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.." This is a report by the government not merely a transcript of a written account. I notice that in the article about the Blue Army that you edited, there is info from the Morganthau Report cited by the "National Polish Committee of America." Somehow you did not insist on removing it. Faustian (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it is and it doesn't matter whether *I* think it's notable - what matters is what secondary sources "think", as I keep repeating in this conversation. If the document is notable then there should be secondary sources discussing it. Please provide these.
Are you seriously claiming that this source is not "close to an event"? Your very own description of the source - which is also from 1919 - contradicts you.
If you wish to discuss some other article then do so there because honestly, off the top of my head I have no idea what you're talking about. Volunteer Marek 07:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A further note about wording. We have conclusions by historian Christopher Mick that is described as him stating that there were no widespread massacres. If we do not also describe what is written by Polish historians as "state" it implies that Mick was wrong, which is original research. When sources differ it is very important to just present their conclusions in a neutral way. So "state" in both cases.Faustian (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I follow here. What exactly is original research? Volunteer Marek 21:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have statements denying atrocities described as "according to.." "or "stated.." You have statements affirming atrocities simply written "this and this happened" rather than "according to.." or "stated.." These statements are not treated the same way. This implies that one side is correct and the other is wrong when there is no consensus on the topic. Implying that one side is correct is original research. The information must be presented in a neutral way. That is, the same way. This is why I have been writing "stated" and "according to.."Faustian (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide specific examples. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen any comments?Faustian (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring should stop at this point, regardless your preferred version was stable for near a month, since it was the most recent, it may be fairly challenged by others, you should not revert them further! If we speak about neutrality, the other party may also claim to put to many sentence like "Ukrainian sources claim/state", etc., even if there are contradictory evaluation of events, both may be presented without such insertions. At every instance, both viewpoints may be summarized at once, after another, e.g. (as it is as well done in controversial issues in many other articles).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. The information about alleged Polish atrocities, in the report cowritten by Ukraine's foreign minister and justice minister, was up for a month before VM decided to edit war to remove it.Faustian (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe KIENGIR is referring to your edit warring against multiple editors. The fact that some piece of text managed to be in an article for a month (after you added it in, I believe) before being rightly removed, per policy, is irrelevant and meaningless. Volunteer Marek 07:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors, one of whom was requested by an ally to come here, are not "multiple."Faustian (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a report written by government ministers about alleged wartime killing of civilians be excluded from a section about civilian casualties?[edit]

Article section:[1].

Here is the statement being removed [2]:

"In a memorandum to the allies during the Paris Peace Conference, an official note written by Volodymyr Temnytsky, foreign minister of the Ukrainian National Republic, and Joseph Burachynsky, justice minister included a partial list of crimes allegedly committed by Poles. These alleged crimes included: that in the village of Yesupol near Halych sixteen Ukrainian peasants were hanged without a trial by Polish forces; that the peasant Jasko Bondar's eyes were gouged out by Polish soldiers because he refused to give them his last cow; that in Labye a widow and mother of seven children was hanged because a rifle had been found next to her house; that a twelve year old girl was raped by numerous Polish soldiers; and that near Sudova Vyshnia seven villages were burned down and their inhabitants killed. Link to original source: [3]. Reference: Polish Atrocities in Ukrainian Galicia: A Telegraphic Note to M. Georges Clemenceau. New York: The Ukrainian National Committee of the United States Year, 1919. Written by [[Volodymyr Temnytsky]], foreign minister, Ukrainian Republic, and Joseph Burachinsky, minister of justice of the Western territory of the Ukrainian Republic."

The editor who insists on removing this information states that he does so because it is a primary source. Is this report considered to be a primary source? And even if so, does it have to be excluded from the article, or is notable enough to warrant inclusion into the article section?Faustian (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event". This is a source by one of the involved parties from 1919. It's a primary source. How is this even in dispute??? And you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate the "notability" of this source - by providing secondary sources which discuss it - despite a request to do so. If this document is indeed notable then it will be discussed in secondary sources and we can use those. Volunteer Marek 07:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also cut it out with the WP:CANVASing? Volunteer Marek 07:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal insults. For the record, you were summoned here prior to engaging in your pattern of removal of sourced information.Faustian (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any insults, personal or otherwise. Falsely accusing someone of making a personal attack is itself a personal attack. And you know very well I have this page on my watchlist. Volunteer Marek 00:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you appeared only after you were mentioned, a month after the edit was made. You falsely accused me of canvassing, which is a personal attack.Faustian (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this RfC is not appropriate. Unfortunately, as soon as a discussion arose regarding one of user Faustian's edits on the Nov 16th, he initiated a RfC on Nov 17th to circumvent the objections or concerns of other editors. This does come across as WP:FORUMSHOP. --E-960 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two Polish editors (with histories of getting blocked for this sort of thing) should not own wikipedia articles. I would love to have other eyes on this. Why do you object?Faustian (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, didn't you just accuse me (falsely) of making personal insults? And in the very next comment you yourself attack people? Nobody's "owning" anything. We are trying to follow policy. And more eyes is fine. But not if you try to cherry pick which eyes you get - that's WP:CANVASSING. Volunteer Marek 00:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, I am responding to your request. I deliberately haven't analysed the essence of the dispute, and my statement is based exclusively on the formal aspects, so I apologize in advance if my analysis is superficial. First of all, various "Polish sources say" that are being removed in the diff provided by you are the remarks that are relevant to primary documents only. For example, if you cite a source X, which presents some analysis of Polish primary sources, and stresses that the sources are Polish, you can write that, according to a scholar Y, Polish sources (e.g., newspapers) say X. If the sources are secondary, such remarks are hardly acceptable: that may be interpreted as we imply the works written by Polish scholarly community are intrinsically biased. Do we have a reason for that? That is not a rhetorical question: maybe, we do, however, we need some source that explicitly says so.

Regarding the removed paragraph, a brief analysis demonstrates that it is supported by a telegraphic note of some official to another official. They are hardly at least one step removed from an event: I doubt that telegram was sent with an informational purpose: that was a note sent by one politician to another politician, and the actual goal to convince another party to take some action. That means they both were participants of that event. Moreover, even if the same text was a part of memoirs, it still would be a primary source.

I admit my analysis could be superficial, so if you disagree with it, I can try to dig deeper. I also propose to go to NORN and ask if this source is primary or secondary, but I suspect the answer will be "Primary". I hope that my comment was helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert (talk, thank you for your thoughtful response! I was focused on it being a report rather than direct eyewitness testimony. Thus, ones tep removed form the event, but not by a disinterested party. Now a related question. Given the fact that the authors are government officials from the very government involved in this war, would it not be appropriate to include what their official statement is, and details from it? If not - why not?Faustian (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is a primary source, and I know how dangerous may be to use primary sources. Than may be a bad analogy, but consider it just an extreme formal example: Hitler also was an official, can we cite his opinion about the event that triggered the attack of Poland? Again, no parallelisms, that is just a formal example.
I made a brief search, and I found no secondary sources that cite that telegram so far. That is surprising, however, that is an argument against inclusion. Have you tried to find a book that discusses this document?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert (talk, It is cited here: [4] but I don't have the book and the page is not on googlebooks. I may get access to it next week. As for your analogy - I think Hitler's opinion would be worthy of citation but it should be labeleld as his opinion.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Frank's "Oil Empire" (if I understand it correctly, you cite this source) seems to be published by Harvard University Press, it was cited 124 times, and by all formal criteria it is a top RS. The only problem is that we don't know yet what exactly Frank says. Let's hope Frank's text will resolve this dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can anyone involved please find a few better sources about this? I am sure they do exist in this case. And the dispute will be resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think however that some of the "anecdotal data" could be cut. I'm just wary that this will be used as an excuse to cut even relevant and notable info as well. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind cutting the data that you deem to be anecdotal, in that case?Faustian (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the cited paragraph, I'd suggest at the very least shortening it. No need to describe the crimes in detail, that's pure sensationalism. But we can mention that the delegation made a report accusing the other sides of war crimes, through I agree we should simply be able to find better (secondary) sources for thiat. For primary sources in another context, hmmm, see my recent comment at Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where it would be nice to hear from more people (no RfC yet). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue, unless RS have decided this is interesting and noted it is undue to include it, even if they do I suspect it may only be worth a brief sentence (attributed) and not a whole paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a primary source, exclude; also, shame on Faustian This subject is under discretionary sanctions and I can see why. The political re-litigating of WWII is depressing. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference to Jews being placed in concentration camps by a source that states this[edit]

This removal, included a misleading edit summary: [5] "that's not what the source says - this is a misrepresentation. Jews are mentioned in passing, along with other non-Ukrainians". Here is the source: [6]. It states "among the interred were Jews and people of other nationalities who were sympathetic to Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murders and abuse."

Very unfortunate that this editor engages in a pattern of blanking sourced information. It's sadly predictable. Faustian (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, based on your recent edits to this article, I get the sense that you are POV pushing, because fist you insisted on adding hedging statements such as "Poles claimed" before every example of atrocities committed by Ukrainians against Poles and that without provided any justification to confirm that these were just allegations and not facts. Now, you are trying to insert every detail possible regarding atrocities committed by Poles against Ukrainians. Since, such details already exit in the article, you are creating undue weight, especially given the fact that you mentioned earlier that during the war both sides mostly respected civilians. --E-960 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will you trim the section of alleged Ukrainian atrocities or are your edits one-sided?Faustian (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source says "Jews .... who were sympathetic to Ukrainian independence", which means they supported not Ukrainians, but the independence of their country (from Poland, as I conclude from the context). That means the reverted wording is somewhat inaccurate, although I agree that Jews were mentioned explicitly, not in passing, and there is no reason to remove them. The problem may be with due weight, not with reliability. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, in addition to the one you note - that the Jews who were interned were those who supported UGA, not Jews in general (note that even among Ukrainians UGA did not have universal support - there was like a dozen factions running around at the time and they wanted different things) - is that the source uses the word "among" and says "and other nationalities". The Poles interned anyone whom they suspected of supporting UGA (UNA was treated separately) regardless of their nationality but Faustian's text falsely implies that these were "camps for Jews".
NB, afaik most sources refer to these camps as "internment camps" or "POW camps" and note explicitly that most deaths were from typhus and other diseases and this was due mostly to the chaos of war and the fact that ... well, there was barely a Polish state which could organize these camps. This source is somewhat unique in referring to these as "concentration camps" (probably due to author's own POV) But I'll have to dig out the material I'm thinking of. It's been awhile. Volunteer Marek 01:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Ukraine (published by University of Toronto) refers to them as concentration camps: [7].Faustian (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "sympathetic". And it does not say UGA, it says "Ukrainian independence". However, that is only a formal objection, I am trying to be neutral, so I don't want to dig deeply.
With regard to typhus, I can hardly accept this argument. If you keep inmates in terrible conditions, a responsibility for typhus is on you, not on "the chaos of war". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek , My text did not imply that these were "camps for Jews." It stated "After the war, in 1920-1921, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians and Jews who had supported the Ukrainians were placed in concentration camps by the Polish government" - not Jews in general. Please be accurate in what you describe. The source stated ""among the interred were Jews and people of other nationalities who were sympathetic to Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murders and abuse." Paul Siebert, given the length of this article, do you think that adding five or six words, simply mentioning that Jews were also interred, is adding undue weight? Taking into account your comment, I propose to add "and Jews who had supported Ukrainian independence were placed in concentration camps by the Polish government" Faustian (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no arguments against inclusion, but, again, I do not pretend I am an expert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the phrase as discussed here.Faustian (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, consensus has NOT been reached. Most sources call these detention facilities "internment camps". Also the formal Polish name for the facilities during that time was "Obóz Internowania". So, again you pick out source that fits your POV (ignore the majority view) and you base your edits around it. So, the reason I'm skeptical towards you edits is because first you add "Poles claimed" to every example of Ukrainian atrocities, now you find a source which incorrectly labels the internment camps, using a term coined in a different country and a different war. Also, I think the original wording is more balanced — if you just list the Jews then say "as well as some of their supporters of other ethnicitie" it comes across as undue weight, at least name some of those other ethnicites, to avoid picking and choosing who to list or not. --E-960 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source explicitly states “concentration camps.“ It does ‘’’not’’’ say “internment camps.” You are adding original research. It ‘’’ only’’’ singles out Jews. It does not name the others. Please do not change what the source states. Articles ought to be true to sources. You are the one pushing a POV as evidenced by your changing wording from what the source states and removing reference to Jewish victims.Faustian (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The formal name was "internment camps" (Obóz Internowanych) that's what the camps were know as during that time, that's the historically accurate term for that time period and that is what should be used, not a term coined in Germany for Nazi camps during WWII. If a source called them "detention camps", I would object as well, because this is the 21st century term coined for US facilities such as Guantanamo during the Afghan and Iraq wars, and if someone uses this term it comes across like they are trying to sanitize the text. They were not called "Konzentrationslager", so stop with this historical mishmash. If a reliable source called an 18th century musket a rifle, I would call that out for being incorrect. Those are two different terms. --E-960 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor it is our job to accurately state what the source said. There was no consensus to remove the words “concentration camp.” VM did not do it. Reliable source published by world’s near top university, Yale, used those specific words- concentration camp. Random wiki editors should not change this based on their personal research or dislike. Doing so is falsifying what the source said.Faustian (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one issue is not solely based on this one reference. You are treating it as a be all end all source. It is not. As an example here is the name of one of such internment camps (Obóz Internowanych Nr 10 w Kaliszu — Tабір інтернованих вояків Армії УНР в Каліші). So, it's called Internment Camp No. 10, not concentration camp. That's a historical fact. Also, just came across this online article titled: "The “concentration camp” language debate is the wrong fight"[8] regarding this exact blurring of proper and historically correct terminologies in order to sensationalize a topic, and it should be avoided here as well. --E-960 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have other references that use other words, use them too. This reference is to a work that uses the word concentration camp. The version that you created does not reflect the source. Original source states ""After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who supported Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse." My version is: "After the war, in 1920-1921, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians, and Jews as well as people of other ethnicity who had supported Ukrainian independence, were placed in concentration camps by the Polish government, where they were often denied food and medicine; some of them died from starvation, disease or suicide. " Your version is: "After the war, in 1920-1921, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians, as well as some of their supporters of other ethnicities, were placed in internment camps by the Polish government, where they were often denied food and medicine; some of them died from starvation, disease or suicide" Clearer my version is an accurate summary of what the source says, and your version is inaccurate. Paul Siebert (talk could you please comment? Would be very grateful!Faustian (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but the source says "sympathetic", not "supporters". "Supporters of independence" sounds more like rebels and their followers, and implies the Poles arrested some active opponents of the regime. In contrast, "sympathetic" implies just political attitudes. And, please, keep in mind that interwar Poland (as well as other EE states, except Finland and Czechoslovakia) was by no means a democratic state, so repressions against some groups of population, especially, not ethnic Poles were not unusual there. And the name "internment camp" could easily be misleading: yes, they could officially proclaim it was not a concentration camp, but if conditions were terrible there, and people were dying from starvation and disease, the most appropriate term would be "concentration camp", so it is not a surprise that some authors use it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right:[9]. Sympathetic to. Will change it. Thank you for your comment. Not only are the words an accurate and correct reflection of the source, they are not historically inaccurate way of describing places with a 20% death rate to disease.Faustian (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus and the discussion is still in process. The Wikipedia article for Internment, lists internment camps as a legitimate term which is not an euphemism and not is not misleading. Staying true to the original name, not a one sides source. Also, are you gonna go to this article and change it to concentration camp — Ukrainian Canadian internment, just cause you found a source which calls them concentration camps? Also, based on your previous edits, I do find you approach questionable and one sided. This source form the University of Glasgow states Ukrainian Prisoners in the Polish Internment Camps, 1920-1924.[10], another source, a book Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City, calls them Polish internment camps as well. [11]. --E-960 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus, you just oppose it. You are the only one objecting to the correct term. VM did not change it, and Paul Siebert agrees that it is the correct word here. Let it go, and don't edit war it please. The statement is referenced to a particular article and that article uses the words "concentration camps." We base our edits on the sources we use. The source you bring up is a thesis written by a graduate student at the University of Glasgow. The source in the article is a book published by Yale University. Not on the same level. Other sources may call it by different names but the one in the article uses the words concentration camps. (Another one here, published by University of Toronto:[12]) "A much greater number of Ukrainians, 70,000–100,000, were interned in Polish concentration camps at Strzałków, Brest, Wadowice, and Dąbie in 1919–20 after the occupation of Galicia. They included former soldiers of the Ukrainian Galician Army and thousands of civilians accused or suspected of disloyalty. Unsanitary conditions in the camps, poor nourishment, and diseases such as typhus and dysentery caused the death of a large number of internees.." Faustian (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source calling it "camp for the interned"[13]. I don't think you quite understand what "consensus" entails, because you finding a source which uses the minority term and you over load the article with it even writing out the text in the citation, that's placing UNDUE WEIGHT one just one reference. Also, not everyone just stays on Wikipedia to edit, so don't expect every one to immediately respond. --E-960 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess we can call the camps where Ukrainians held 25,000 Poles prisoner "concentration camps" as well. --E-960 (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IF a source says so, then do it. If it does not, do not. Interesting that you feel free to add things without lengthy discussion (unlike you, I am not reverting it) but revert others who add information that is in the source. Again, we have two editors that state this is the appropriate wording. Only you object, and yet you continue reverting. So you are edit warring against consensus on this article.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faustian, other sources do not use this terminology, also Volunteer Marek objected to the use of this term. So, how can you even remotely argue consent, and this coming form an edit who tried to drop in weasel words such as "Poles claims" into the article. I don't thing you are objective in this case and your edits and behavior is disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this source does. Volunteer Marek stated that these are usually referred to as internment camps but he did not change it. Only you did. I used "Poles claimed" because those references contradicted other ones. I them changed it to "Poles state" which is more neutral, and you still reverted and edit warred. SO two editors feel it is appropriate one does not and that one reverts to get his way.Faustian (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from rfc)

Calling your editing approach questionable is not a personal attack. Especially, given the fact that you did try to insert hedging statements into the article, and you engaged in edit warring (three editors objected to your behavior), but you keep ignoring that fact. Also, you accuse others of personal attacks, yet several time during these discussions you attacked myself and Volunteer Marek by calling us repeatedly "Polish editors", making an issue of someone's ethnicity is clearly uncalled for and against Wikipedia rules. --E-960 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC was about 2 specific questions concerning a source and wording, and despite several requests you continue to fill it with personal attacks and comments about another editor.Faustian (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does this statement reflect the source material[edit]

Source statement in this part of the article [14]: "After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who supported Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse."

Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19

Article states: "After the war, in 1920-1921, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians, and Jews as well as people of other ethnicity who had supported Ukrainian independence, were placed in concentration camps by the Polish government, where they were often denied food and medicine; some of them died from starvation, disease or suicide."

One editor keeps removing the words "concentration camp" and references to Jews as being among the victims.

1. Is this an accurate statement based on the source?

2. Should it be changed to remove reference to Jews and to remove the words "concentration camp."Faustian (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the source was quoted not verbatim, so quotation marks are misleading. It uses "supported" in a context of not only military, but "university professors, priests, lawyers and doctors". With respect to interned Jews and other nationalities it says "sympathetic".
Second, this source does support this statement, and Jews are mentioned explicitly, partially because their testimonies "described murders and abuse".
However, I don't know if this source provides a mainstream viewpoint, or it represents just a minority view. Taking into account that the publisher is very reputable, and that the book was cited in 25 articles, it is likely that it is not a minority view, but further analysis is necessary to confirm that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another example of WP:FORUMSHOP from user Faustian. First, he tried to insert weasel words into the article, such as "Poles claimed" [15] before every sourced example of Ukrainian atrocities against Poles (and that, without and reference to justify his edit), now he tries to re-label "internment camps" (which is the historically accurate term: "Obozy Internowanych") as "concentration camps" bases on a source from a Ukrainian author (who completely ignores the internment of Polish civilians by Ukrainians). So, Polish prisoner camps are "concentration camps" but the Ukrainian prisoner camps are just "camps". Blatant bias, unfortunatley, it is clear that user Faustian is pushing a one sided narrative. Then, when other editors object, he sets up RfCs to circumvent critical opinion of his edits. --E-960 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source uses the term "internment camps": Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City — "Polish internment camps".[16]. Btw, this is a source that user Faustain also used as reference in his edit, but chose to ignore the fact that it uses a different and less controversial term, and that it referenced Ukrainian internment of Poles. Unfortunately, this is not the first time user Faustian tries to rush through an RfC, in order to close down an ongoing discussion before legitimate questions about the accuracy of his edits and reliability are asked and analyzed. --E-960 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks, do not mischaracterize what others do, and stick to this specific question, about this phrase and source (let’s not derail it by discussing other issues). I will note that on this specific issue your opinion is not shared by other editors. One other editor has agreed that the word “concentration camp” is appropriate. No one has agreed with you that it should be removed. I have opened up an RFC to get more voices here, on this issue.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to realize that other sources use the more common and accepted term "internment camps". However, based on your source and over the objections of other editors, you insist on using the more controversial and less common term "concentration camp". Pls see, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. If you insist on using this term than it should also be applied to Ukrainian camps where Polish civilians were held — as Ukrainian concentration camps. --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only objection has been from one editor - you. Another editor also disagrees with you. Another source also describes these as Polish concentration camps but that isn’t relevant here. This source does. If you find other sources stating Ukrainian concentration camps then include in article of course. Faustian (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any camp that hold civilians can be either called concentration camp or internment camp if you insist on using the first term, than it should be applied uniformly. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that “concentration camp” is not incorrect since you state it is interchangeable with your preferred term. I don’t care which word is used as long as it accurately reflects the source. It should only be applied the way the source applies it. In this case, we have sources stating concentration camps. Please comment in the previous section. Let’s have others contribute in the RFC.Faustian (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pls do not put words in my mouth. As stated before and backed up by the reference sources I presented (Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City [17]). The historically accurate term is "internment camp" which is the less controversial and undisputed term, for the time period before WWII and Nazi Germany. However, whatever the term, it should be applied uniformly, to avoid bias. Also, as noted before several editors including KIENGIR and Volunteer Marek already objected to you editing approach and red herring RfCs, which come across as a method to circumvent discussions already in progress and earlier objections form other editors. --E-960 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss the point for this RfC, because though the statement you ask about may indeed reflect the source, however this is not the only source out there, and the term used in it is not the more commonly used phrase, in fact you are proposing the more controversial and disputed term, which is not true to the original name "obozy internowanych". --E-960 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks on RFC. I posted this RFC because we were at an impasse; two editors felt this term was correct; you alone objected. So I posted to get more opinions. Now you fill the RFC with attacks. This may not be the only source out there, but it’s a good source published by Yale university press with numerous citations, and it uses those words that you object to. And it is the source used here. And now even you admit that this reflects what the source says.Faustian (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular event/issue I feel unsafe, because I do not have the necessary knowledge to judge that. However, my approach would be that first let's see the facts, secondly the most objective viewpoints, and the third place find the most appropriate sources to support them. As reviewing the current debate of concentration vs. interment capms, this is an everday subject in the List of concentration and internment camps article that has a pretty recent and active history, with tons of debate (just checked there's a Poland section, but did not go further, is this issue mentioned there? If yes, how it is presented there, maybe there is source?, etc.)...however, in the earlier section a sentence catched my attention from Paul (interwar Poland (as well as other EE states, except Finland and Czechoslovakia) was by no means a democratic state); that seems dubious or may be misinterpreted, since if EE is meant az Eastern European, i.e., Czechoslovakia is Central European, however in contemporary context even Hungary was described as a Southeast-European country, however before or after such would not stand, moreover judging what would be democratic is as well an issue, better the level of democracy may be judged, but the referred statement does not really stand.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmm. The source appears reliable (academic author and press), but we have to consider WP:REDFLAG, such as the use of the term Polish concentration camps, which is certainly not an accepted term of reference to this among most historians. This term, if used (which I advise against), should be clearly attributed to Myroslav Shkandrij. As for the mentions of the Jews among those interned (imprisoned), I don't feel it's particularly relevant. There surely were other ethnicities and nationalities represented there too. Singling out this one seems like sensationalism, again - it stresses an undue fact in a veiled accusations of antisemitism. Overall, the quoted paragraph does not create a good impression of Myroslav Shkandrij research, and I'd suggest we should be careful with repeating his claims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, the scandal with Polish concentration camps (when Nazi camps in Poland were referred to as Polish camps) was not because they weren't concentration camps (or more accurately extermination camps) but because they were falsely attributed to Poland. Referring to the Nazi death camps as Polish camps is indeed utterly unacceptable. These camps, in contrast, were actually created by the Polish government. They had a death rate of 20%, which was comparable to that of the British concentration camps ("It is thought that about 12 percent of black African inmates died (about 14,154) but the precise number of deaths of black Africans in concentration camps is unknown"). Another source, Encyclopedia of Ukraine which was published by University of Toronto, also uses concentration camps when referring to the Polish-run camps [18]. The words "virtual concentration camps" is used here to refer to treatment of Jews by Polish government in 1919-1920: [19]. Book is published by Cambridge University Press. So books published by two of the word's top universities use this word in reference to Polish camps of this time. Another mentions of Jews in Polish concentration camps here:[20]; book published by University of Toronto Press. So usage of this term is neither inaccurate nor unique. Jews were singled out for mention by the source itself, because Jews wrote about the murders and mistreatment within the camps and were presumably the most numerous of the non-Ukrainian victims. I'm not sure what grounds you have to criticize Myroslav Shkandrij. This book was published by Yale University Press. Shkandrij has written about the brutal crimes of the Bandera movement so implications that he is some sort of unreliable Ukrainian nationalist seem to be unfounded. Here is a review of the book btw: [21]. "Shkandrij dispassionately examines the group’s hyperauthoritarian, antihumanist strain of Ukrainian nationalism." Here is one of his articles: [22]Faustian (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faustian, pls consider the following less controversial and not disputed reliable sources: Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland[23] in the book published just in 2018, it states Both sides conducted mass arrests of civilians. Twenty-five thousand Poles ended up in Ukrainian camps, as prisoner before 1919, 100,000 Ukrainians were subsequently interned in the camps of the ultimately victorious Polish Army. Also, this reliable source: Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City[24] published recently in 2016, refers to the sites in a table, as Austrian internment camps [and] Polish internment camps. Another reliable source: The 'Change of Signposts' in the Ukrainian Emigration[25] published in 2014, states At the border Polish authorities disarmed the Ukrainians and sent them to internment camps. Also, this primary source from 1920 in English, The New Europe, Volume 15[26] states Polish internment camps which are a crying scandal. Other reliable sources which use the terms "internment camps" or "camps" include: Ukraine's Quest for Identity: Embracing Cultural Hybridity[27] and Western Ukraine in conflict with Poland and Bolshevism, 1918-1923[28] and The Ukrainian Quarterly, Volumes 40-41[29] and Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, Volume 2 [30]. These books, which are reliable sources (both secondary and primary), use the more broadly accepted terms, which are not controversial. So, I'm not sure why you insist on using terminology which is contested. Also, as previously stated by users Volunteer Marek and Piotrus, singling out Jews is somewhat irrelevant in this particular context. In any case, at this point your proposed edits appear to be rather controversial. --E-960 (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the word used ought to be the one actually used in the reference cited. We have two referenced reliable sources using the word "concentration camp." Shkandrij's work published by Yale University Press, and the Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by the University of Toronto Press. We also have reliable sources published by Cambridge and Toronto presses referring to these camps as "concentration camps."Faustian (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, pls do not edit war, there is NO CONSENSUS at the moment to your newly proposed text, and the discussion is still going on. --E-960 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to remove this entire section. You are the one edit warring.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is new text, which you added on 06:38, 17 November 2019 [31] to the Aftermath section, and its validity and objectivity is in dispute. Pls keep in mind the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --E-960 (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK simple request from both sides. Provide three sources that support either claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with this content as per the Yale University Press source. "After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who supported Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse." (Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19). There seems to be an emotional component to this debate. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inaccurate I took a look at the Myroslav Shkandrij source (2015, p. 19; ISBN: 9780300206289) and did not find any reference to Jews with respect to the quoted section. Here is the complete text:
"After the war, in 1920-21, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. The interned included not only soldiers and army officers but also university professors, priests, lawyers, and doctors who supported the national movement. The Red Cross and some Polish newspapers, such as the socialist Robotnik (Worker), protested the appalling conditions. Treatment of internees and the abuse of the civilian population were documented in publications like Osyp Megas's Tragediia Halytskoi Ukrainy (Tragedy of Galician Ukraine, 1929) and Krivava knyha (Bloody Book, 2 vols., 1919, 1921), a collection of documents produced by the Western Ukrainian People's Republic."
The source did call the prisons concentration camps. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin Naz, Jews are mentioned in the same paragraph, two sentences after the last one you quoted: [32].Faustian (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to use an ellipsis because the presented quote does not reflect the correct sequence of sentences. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"concentration camp"[edit]

  • "After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who were sympathetic to Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse." Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 [33] This is the source used in this article
  • "A much greater number of Ukrainians, 70,000–100,000, were interned in Polish concentration camps at Strzałków, Brest, Wadowice, and Dąbie in 1919–20 after the occupation of Galicia. They included former soldiers of the Ukrainian Galician Army and thousands of civilians accused or suspected of disloyalty. Unsanitary conditions in the camps, poor nourishment, and diseases such as typhus and dysentery caused the death of a large number of internees." source: Encyclopedia of Ukraine [34]. Published by University of Toronto Press.
  • In August the Ministry of war ordered the separation of all Jewish volunteers and front soldiers, especially intellectuals, form Polish troops. They were interred in concentration camps" [35]. Source: Jewish People, Yiddish Nation: Noah Prylucki and the Folkists in Poland. Kalman Weiser University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Probably an entire article can be made dedicated to Polish concentration camps from before World War II.

It's not a rarely used term and, importantly, is the specific term used in the article being referenced.Faustian (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your third source is not talking about the Polish-Ukrainian War but rather the Polish-Bolshevik War. There's some pages that are omitted on google books but it does say "until Soviet troops had been repulsed". Likewise, August 1920 would be Polish-Bolshevik war not this one (which ended in July 1919). If you're going to complain that E-960 is including sources which reference the internment of "other" Ukrainian troops, then please don't try to pull similar things yourself. At least with E-960's sources it's the same war even if (possibly) different armies. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the Jablonna camp, which is what you searched for for some reason is referred to as "internment camp" (other sources call it "detention camp"). Surely you must have seen that source when you did your search for "jablonna poland camp". It's the very first hit. But regardless. Wrong war. Volunteer Marek 16:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And hold up. Your second source lists camps at Strzałków, Brest, Wadowice, and Dąbie. These were ALL camps for UNR soldiers. They were the same camps that E-960's sources talk about (and call them "internment camps"). They MAY have included UGA, but they were specifically established to deal with Petliura soldiers. You can't complain about E-960 listing sources for UNR camps and then do same yourself. Volunteer Marek 16:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted second source it clearly states UGA soldiers and does not mention UNR soldiers. The internment camps for friendly UNR soldiers were different:[36] and have a different entry. Articles provide different locations for both types of camps. So according to Encyclopedia of Ukraine, UGA soldiers and their civilian sympathizers were held in concentration camps while UNR soldiers were in internment camps. The latter had better conditions. Your claim is incorrect. I’ll assume good faith and honest mistake.Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but there's a plethora of other sources (in fact, most of them) which specifically refer to these particular camps as camps for UNR [37]. In fact some of them were explicitly started for that purpose. There may have been some UGA soldiers which wound up in those camps (particularly since the situation was fluid and many individual soldiers went back and forth between various factions) but the fact (not a mistake) is that these were UNR camps. UNR camps are covered much more extensively in the literature than whatever camps for UGA were set up, because of the deal between Poland and Petliura. I think the source is either wrong or inaccurate. Maybe because UNR is much less popular in Ukraine than UGA, but that's just speculation. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source you linked to listed various camps as UNR camps. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine also names those specific camps but separates them - concentration camps were for Galicians (Brest, Wadowice), internment camps for UNR (Kalisz) - rather than lumping them together as the linked source does.Faustian (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"internment camp"[edit]

To start out, I'd also like to also highlight the fact that those sites in Polish were called "Obozy Internowanych", not German "Konzentrationslager". Also, some of the primary sources listed below, such as British diplomatic correspondence and contemporary publications also referred to those sites as "internment camps":

  • Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City[38]
  • Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland[39]
  • The 'Change of Signposts' in the Ukrainian Emigration[40]
  • The New Europe, Volume 15[41]
  • Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Volume 5[42]
  • Ukraine's Quest for Identity: Embracing Cultural Hybridity[43]
  • Western Ukraine in conflict with Poland and Bolshevism, 1918-1923[44]
  • The Ukrainian Quarterly, Volumes 40-41[45]
  • Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, Volume 2[46]
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine[47]
  • Relief of European Populations, Volumes 1-6[48]
  • British Foreign Office: Russia, correspondence 1906-1913 and 1919-1940[49]
  • Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World[50]
  • Ukrainian Prisoner-of-war Publications[51]
  • The Emergence of Ukraine Self-Determination, Occupation, and War in Ukraine, 1917–1922[52] (PDF download)
  • Colonialism in the Polish Eastern Borderlands 1919–1939[53]
  • "Glory to Ukraine!": Who and when was the slogan created?[54]
  • Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine: At the Head of the Intelligence Services of the Government-in-exile[55]

If needed, I can also include additional detail. --E-960 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking all of these, this link you provided was wrong: [56]. "Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, Volume 2" It was in reference to internment camps of UNR soldiers who were allies of Poland, not perceived enemies as was the focus of this article. It looks like you just google searched the words "internment camps" and slapped on anything you could find.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I checked some, and camps can mean either, it has to say internment camp.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources seem to be talking about interment of Polish allies, it is what we are talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faustian's text does not make it clear. It just says "Ukrainians" so technically it could be both. Volunteer Marek 14:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However I think either term seems equally valid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are valid. However the source used as a reference in the wikipedia article says specifically "concentration camp." Since the words "concentration camp" are both valid and the term used in the sources we are using as a reference, than the words concentration camp ought to be used in the wikipedia article. Do you agree?Faustian (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, as we are not required to use only one source. Rather we are required to reflect all POV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources E-960 listed are false (see my example above, for one) so his list is to an extent misleading. He just googled the terms and listed the names he found without checking. Yale University Press and University of Toronto are very good sources, and both use the term "concentration camp" to refer to where Ukrainians were held as I showed by quoting them. I suspect this term is common enough that it reflects general POV and is not some sort of fringe term. It reflects POV.Faustian (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True many of his source do not seem to be that good (and you may take that as a warning, misrepresenting sources is against policy) some do, and I dislike Source trumping. I suggest you both find a way to have both terms used, its clear they are in sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Faustian, who only checked one source from E-960's list (which just happened to be referring to a similar but different issue - the internment of Petliura's forces), I also checked only one source. And lo and behold, this source - University of Warwick, published in a peer reviewed journal - specifically refers to these camps as "internment camps or prisons" and specifically references Ukrainian Galician Army which is the Ukrainian force which fought in THIS war. Volunteer Marek 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, the present text that Faustian wishes to add does not differentiate UGA prisoners and UNR soldiers (who up to 1919 were allied with UGA and only became allies with Poland after the Bolsheviks defeated them), it just says "Ukrainians", which could include both, so I'm not sure why Faustian is trying to pretend that the sources E-960 found about UNR are irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, my intent was not to misrepresent, but to show that this indeed is a more commonly used term, hence some of the sources do only use the words "internment camp" in passing, however this does show that this is the more commonly utilized term and that this term has a historical context and backing. Hence, the historical example form the British Foreign Office, or the current example form the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some do not seem to use it at all, or in connection with other events.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, can you give me the names, I checked all before citing to make sure that they do reference the term in relation to the Polish sites, and I know some were difficult to pull on Google Books, let me check again, and I'll write out the text here. --E-960 (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you one then await the explanation [[57]] is a snippet view that only seems to contain the word Ukrainian (which seem to be chapter headings). You must be aware snippet views like this are not permissible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, The New Europe, Volume 15 (1920) page 306 reads: "...Polish internment camps which are a crying scandal, worse perhaps than anything the Germans produced. Fresh transports of Ukrainian officers keep arraving at the camp at Jalowiec." --E-960 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another snippet view [[58]] Another [[59]] another [[60]] This one [[61]] seems to be talking about Austria. This [[62]] does not even link to an article, this [[63]] lacks any context, or even the word Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} I think a core issue is - does the wiki wording accurately reflect what the source it is based on says? And is the base source using an acceptable term? I think in both cases the answer is yes. It would seem to be incorrect for the reference to use one term but the article to use a different term from the one in the reference. That having been said, I think using multiple sources as references that use both terms, and therefore using both terms in the article would be a good compromise.Faustian (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be normally how we deal with this sort of issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So can we agree to this compromise?Faustian (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is only part of the issue. The other part is "is this source representative of general literature or is it cherry picked, hence WP:UNDUE"? Volunteer Marek 16:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is published by Yale university press and term is also used in other sources such as in more than one entry in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, published by the institute of Ukrainian studies at the University of Toronto, so I suspect it is not cherry picked or fringe.Faustian (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me its hard to say which side that can be leveled against.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue here is that even the Shkandrij source is explicit about the fact that the claims about bad "treatment of internees and abuse of civilians" came from Ukrainian press ("documents produced by the Western Ukrainian's People Republic") so this should be at the very least attributed. It also seems that even the Ukrainian primary documents referred to this as an internment camp although the author here changes it to "concentration" and doesn't follow his own primary sources. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think both claims would need attribution, the only question for me is ordering.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, ok here are the follow ups:
  • Relief of European Populations, Volumes 1-6 (1920) pages 147-148 reads: Section title: "The Ukrainian Internment Camp at Przemysl" (a reference to the Ukrainians held at the Polish camp. "...at the Polish camp the sergeants do not report their superiors about the number of dead Ukrainian martyrs."
  • Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World (1994) page 157 reads: "In 1919, some Soldiers of the Ukrainian Galician Army after passing through Slovakia en rout to the internment camps in Czechia reorganized themselves..." (here we have a comparison, if Czechs interned soldiers of the Ukrainian Galician Army in internment camps, than the term should be equally valid to Poles who interned the Ukrainian Glician Army soldiers at internment camps).
  • The Emergence of Ukraine Self-Determination, Occupation, and War in Ukraine, 1917–1922 (2015) page 384 reads: "Symon Petliura, along with government and central officials, was in Tarnów, while soldiers and officers were in a number of internment camps. During the months and years that followed, their numbers gradually declined. They found work in Poland, traveled to other countries, or returned to Bolshevik, later Soviet, Ukraine."
These last three refrences lack full context, but show that the term was commonly used for this time period.
  • Western Ukraine in conflict with Poland and Bolshevism, 1918-1923 (2009) page 16 reads: "Thousands of Ukrainians were deported to internment camps."
  • British Foreign Office: Russia, correspondence 1906-1913 and 1919-1940 (1977) page reads: "Conditions in Polish internment camps, British Military Mission to General Denikin."
  • Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, Volume 2 (1971) page 191 reads: "...the Sociological institute and and the Ukrainian Pedagogical Institute in Prague, brought to them students form internment camps in Poland."
--E-960 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot say because source A says X this supports Y.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and that fine. I don't have an academic background, so I may not be familiar with source analysis. But, I would argue that the term "internment camp" is a more commonly applied phrase, which can claim proper historical usage/terminology, while the other is a more contested term and used less often. Also, I would argue that the term "concentration camp" is also used to politicize an issue or a topic (like the US detention centers), as noted in this news article: The “concentration camp” language debate is the wrong fight [64] --E-960 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Text[edit]

After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish camps (often characterized as intermittent or sometimes concentration camps) held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide"Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good! I would change intermittent to internment. Thank you for your input.Faustian (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that (and yes it's internment). Volunteer Marek 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point to one other thing, in this same section, right above the reference to the Polish sites, is this passage: "Both sides conducted mass arrests of civilians. By July 1919, as many as 25,000 Poles ended up in Ukrainian concentration camps, in Zhovkva, Zolochiv, Mykulyntsi, Strusiv, Yazlovets, Kolomyya and Kosiv." Thus, to keep the text neutral, and consistent (and avoid future debates), I would recommend utilizing this reference source: Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City[65], and just say how this source puts it... prisoners at the "Polish camps", and "Ukrainian Camps". --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As we have three sources for Polish camps I would suggest we need three sources saying "Ukrainian concentration camps" (note a source that says that, not implies it).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this looks rather bias, based per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and "Sources may still have systemic bias problems." English speaking academia ignores the subject of those Poles. So, in a Wikipedia article, facilities which held Ukrainian civilians are Polish "concentration camps", but facilities which held Polish civilians are Ukrainian "camps". I found this news article [66] which states: The people interred there [Poles] died in the Ukrainian internment camp in Kosachiv during the Polish-Ukrainian war of 1918-1919. So, it makes sense to call both internment camps, because it's blatant bias to call one "camps" and the other "concentration camps".--E-960 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is bias, bias in the RS. If they do not call them concentration camps neither can we (read wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, we can call them both "internment camps" or "camps" to ensure neutrality. We have sources for that. Also, user Volunteer Marek raised a good point "It also seems that even the Ukrainian primary documents referred to this as an internment camp although the author here changes it to "concentration" and doesn't follow his own primary sources" and user Piotrus stated "we have to consider WP:REDFLAG, such as the use of the term Polish concentration camps, which is certainly not an accepted term of reference to this among most historians. This term, if used (which I advise against), should be clearly attributed to Myroslav Shkandrij." As I mentioned before the use of this term is not historically accurate and is used to sensationalize a topic. --E-960 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And our reader will want to know what kind of camp, A Holiday Camp, and army camp? Camp is too vague, and trying to argue that because X is not called 1 we cannot call Y 1 is false NPOV. There may well be reasons why one type of camp is called a concentration camp and another is not, and we are not party to such deliberations.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(comment to E-960):Second-guessing how a RS uses primary sources is itself original research. Article is based on what reliable secondary sources conclude.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An "internment camp", we have the sources for both the Polish and Ukrainian sides, and thus we maintain neutrality. --E-960 (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We also have RS for concentration camp, NPOV does not mean we pretend one side did not say something in the name of false balance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We have reliable sources that refer to the Polish camps only as concentration camps and others that refer to them only as internment camps. So the compromise proposed above would accurately capture and report what RS say. So far no source refers to the Ukrainian camps as concentration camps.Faustian (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that's called Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Perhaps, we can get more input form users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek on this. But, for the moment I have my doubts about the inclusion of this term. Also, perhaps they can find more sources to present in this discussion. --E-960 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is an essay, it is not a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and I hope VM does not mind) he has agreed to my suggestion [[67]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, it's bias, are you just going to call Ukrainian sites "camps"? Just above you said: "And our reader will want to know what kind of camp, A Holiday Camp, and army camp? Camp is too vague." I'd like to get more input form users Piotrus and MV. --E-960 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We call them what RS call them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fine with the current text [68] but I would really like to get cleared up whether Shkandrij is talking about camps for UGA or UNR. His text and Encyclopedia of Ukraine both suggest it was UGA but the specific camps they list were actually camps that were set up for Petliura's soldiers, UGA. I'm not going to make any edits to the article on the basis of this, but it does look to me like these two sources are throwing in both camps into the same bag then emphasizing that there were some UGA soldiers in them (perhaps because UGA is seen in a better light than UNR in Ukraine). Any other sources we could dig up here? Volunteer Marek 14:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this elsewhere but the Encyclopedia of Ukraine has separate articles with Galician camps [69]and with UNR camps [70]and names the camps; they are not the same camps. According to Encyclopedia of Ukraine the Galician camps were terrible but the UNR camps did not have terrible conditions(which one would expect given that UNR was allied with Poland).Faustian (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the text above. JoeZ451 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz[reply]

Total bias[edit]

I think this main article has to be the most profound bit of hopelessly biased Polish propaganda on Wikipedia. The Poles were absolutely hated in Galicia by the Ruthenian population and the diplomatic archives and western newspaper reports for the 1919-1939 period suggest a guerilla war was carried on against the Polish occupying authorities throughout this time. So this ridiculous bit of propaganda has no merit whatsoever and is another example of how Wikipedia has allowed fanatical Polish nationalists to corrupt pages on it. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:C111:764F:2948:51EC (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its only biased probably for you and if such a newspaper exists then i request sending it. Olek Novy (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish–Ukrainian_War&oldid=1209802122"