Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:There are dozens of reliable sources for the information included in this article; indeed, every bit of information is based on a reliable source (a book published by a university, a peer-reviewed journal, a well-known historian, etc.) Please point out a specific statement in the article that is not referenced to a reliable source, and we can discuss it and remove it, rather than just remove info and disrupt the article.] (]) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:There are dozens of reliable sources for the information included in this article; indeed, every bit of information is based on a reliable source (a book published by a university, a peer-reviewed journal, a well-known historian, etc.) Please point out a specific statement in the article that is not referenced to a reliable source, and we can discuss it and remove it, rather than just remove info and disrupt the article.] (]) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Rabid Ukrainian Nationalist Faustian is violating the 1RR and has just deleted statements from a conference at Oxford university:
Now I understand that he considers himself superior to what Oxford University deems academically proper, but he is out of line here. This is going up. Sanctions will be requested. The Ukrainian Nationalist bias of this page violates NPOV.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
The article is biased, it doesn't mention Ukrainian victims of Ukrainian terror, Soviet and Nazi influence, situation of Ukrainians in other countries (SU, Czechoslovakia). Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, while we're here, the sentence "Following the annexation of Red Ruthenia, Poland for the first time in history ruled lands which were not ethnically Polish." is not actually correct, though perhaps it could be made to be correct with some qualifications. Under Boleslaw Chrobry Poland ruled Bohemia and Moravia, "Red Ruthenia" as well Milsko and Luzyce (Lusatians and Sorbs) none of which were ethnically Polish, at least not in a modern sense, though honestly you go that far back, it's really hard to say how much difference there was between 10th/11th century Poles/Czechs/Slovaks/Ruthenians/Sorbs - best way to think of it is as a continuum rather than anything with discrete differences (Malopolanie from Malopolska were probably more similar to both Ruthenians and Slovaks than to Mazovians or even people from Wielkopolska). Anyway, claim needs a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Also also, you've re-insterted this part twice:
As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Dmowski, the policies based on his views prevailed and were implemented, with the result of alienating Poland's minorities to such an extent that, even after Piłsudski gained power in 1926, his attempted reforms did not affect the attitude of the minorities. As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Dmowski, the policies based on his views prevailed before Piłsudski's return to power.
And I want to raise an objection to the claim that "initially the Polish government was controlled by Dmowski" and hence implemented his policies. In fact it was more of a continuing stand off between the Endeks and the Pilsudskites and both policies manifested themselves in different ways (asterix). Anyway, I'm not seeing it in the source provided though that may be because the particular page is unavailable in google books. The Snyder source even also contradicts the claim somewhat, by saying that it wasn't until after Pilsudski's death that the policies of Dmowski gain currency. Is there a quote and a page number here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(asterix) the main result was that many of the offices were controlled by the agrarian Peasant party, people who were essentially non-ideological, or the semi-conservative parties that were NOT affiliated with Dmowski (Galician conservatives or Christian Democrats). Grabski was an exception here, but you can stack several outright Socialist and Pilsudskite prime ministers and officials who were quite sympathetic to the "minorities issue" in interwar Poland. It should also be noted that during this time the ethnic minority parties were quite strong (relative to their size).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all your points, and trust any changes you make. I'm busy in RL and am working quickly here (I checked my watchlist and stil find the time to fix articles I've worked on in the past).Faustian (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the text in Snyder, what it says is that the strongest anti-Ukrainian language policy was the "Lex Grabski" of 1924, specifically referring to the time when Grabski was PM. Somehow this got changed to "Initially the Polish government was controlled by Dmowski's faction" - but 1923-1925 is different than 1918-1926.
The info on "Lex Grabski" could be included in this article - it's more precise anyway and it would also fit in/explain some of this graph that I made:
.
Basically, according to Snyder the bilingual schools shown in the graph replaced (or were seen as replacing) Ukrainian language schools.
On a (somewhat) happier note, the Snyder book also has good information on 19th century developments, like discussion of Ukrainian and Polish participation in the January Uprising (I'm thinking of stubbing Edmund Różycki) on pages 121, Polish support of Ukrainian language and nationalism (couple pages later) and how the Russian authorities saw Ukrainian activism as part of a "Polish plot" and blamed the spread of Ukrainian language on the Poles (some of whom ended up in prison for it). Including info like that would add balance to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There were very different contexts. In central Ukraine Poles and Ukrainians cooperated very closely. The Poles had no realistic claims on those lands anymore and saw the Russians as the main enemy and rival (as did Ukrainian nationalists). Also, a significant strand of the Ukrainian intelligenstsia from those lands, such as the founder of Ukrainian nationalist school of history Volodymyr Antonovych were Ukrainianized Polish (minor) nobles. Anti-Polish resentments continued among the peasantry, who remembered Polish serfdom, but was absent in the Ukrainian national movement. In Galicia, in contrast, Poles and Ukrainians found themselves competing for the same territory and resources and the relationship was therefore quite bitter. When Ukrainian nationalist exiles such as Hrushevsky were exiled to Lviv they were frequntly shocked by the hatred they saw between the two peoples.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean in the article or in the sources? The article alludes to these things in general terms but probably more specifics would help. Also, I see that in fact the "Lex Grabski" is already mentioned in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We got one side view at the situation. Poor Ukrainians haunted by Poles. In fact all Polish authorities reactions were response to UWO/OUN anti-Polish assassinations. UWO/OUN wanted to cause these repercussions.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Paweł, in case you didn't notice, Faustian just said that the information on UVO/OUN terror attacks should be included in the article. You're not helping here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I have noticed. This is information for you:) Could you help with translations articles I have pasted above? Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait you're talking about pl:Drugie wystąpienie UWO and pl:Pierwsze wystąpienie UWO, and more: pl:Zamach na Józefa Piłsudskiego we Lwowie (1921)? The last one is certainly significant and should probably be translated. The first two could probably go into a general article on UWO interwar activities for now. I'll try to translate the assassination attempt one for now - and I invite Faustian to help or at least keep an eye on it. In regard to the present article, it just needs a lot of work, period. And I mean, it needs a lot of work that is not even related to any particular view point or ideology - the sections are a mess, most of the stuff in the "Pilsudski's policies" doesn't even cover years when he was in power, there are significant errors of omissions etc. So there's a lot of work to be done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Removal of info under false edit summary
Take a closer look at the following edit * 03:51, 1 September 2011 Faustian (talk | contribs) (22,118 bytes) (Removed a lot of stuff referenced to an unreliable source (Poliszczuk), kept Marek's referenced addition).
Contrary to summary, the above edit was a blank revert of everything going back (all the way) to {{Expand section|date=September 2008}}. In total, 10,374 bytes of well referenced info was removed, and the number of citations reduced from 47 to 35, including the following few samples of 12 weblinks to a variety of wp:rs material including books written by reputable scholars, and accessible via Google Books.
^ Timothy Snyder. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
^ Michael J. Mikoś. "Middle Ages. Cultural background". Printed in: Polish Literature from the Middle Ages to the End of the Eighteenth Century. A Bilingual Anthology, by Michael J. Mikoś, Warsaw: Constans, 1999. Staropolska online. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
^ Stephen Velychenko (1992). National history as cultural process: a survey of the interpretations of Ukraine's past in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian historical writing from the earliest times to 1914. CIUS Press. ISBN 0920862756. Retrieved August 13, 2011.
^ Paul Robert Magocsi (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, page 697.. University of Toronto Press. Retrieved August 24, 2011.
and many others.
The above blank revert of copy was toppled with a personal attack (see: the opening line in the section above): "not yet another of the dozwens (sic) of sockpuppetrs (sic) of banned User:Loosmark" – a false allegation meant to discredit new research. Please, focus on content, OK? This Misplaced Pages entry is not your venue for political advocacy against any development in Ukrainian-Polish history. And, don't play with words in your summaries, because the article history is there for all to see.
— FoliesTrévise (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I restored the version from July 2011. I did not go all the way back to eptember 2008! I subsequently and immediately afterward went back and added the noncontroversial stuff, and then expanded the article a bit: . Because there is a long history of dozens of sockpuppets of user:Loosmark behaving as you do I expressed hope that you were not one of them.Faustian (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What you actually restored is {{Expand section|date=September 2008}}. However, if you don't stop abusing your privileges including subsequent comments on this talk page, I will take it to wp administration. Your personal point of view on what is a "noncontroversial stuff" and who's "behaving as you do" is your opinion, OK? — FoliesTrévise (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I restored the version from July 23rd, with the addition of what Marek posted, as can be seen in the comparison between my edit and the July 23rd version here: . Please refrain from making false statements. I then went back to add some of what I had removed. Other information that was clearly unreliable was kept out.Faustian (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Look, Faustian, there's no advantage in lying on the talk page of Misplaced Pages, because everything you do in mainspace is automatically recorded. You say, you restored "noncontroversial stuff" after your indiscriminate revert of everything new, but you also restored Soviet propaganda meant only to incite hatred between these two nations. Why? – There's a disturbing pattern to your edits, Faustian. You went to Poliszczuk's bio and defaced it, by putting words in the mouths of his critics in order to make him appear unreliable, and than you went around and removed all info originating from his extensive work, claiming that he "is" unreliable. This is called: "gaming the system". Poliszczuk said that OUN-UPA was a criminal organization. Is that why you're gaming the system now? — FoliesTrévise (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Poliszczuk said that OUN-UPA was a criminal organization Snyder who seems accepted by Faustian, calls it terrorist organisation. While Poliszczuk published a lot on his own, he also did publish scholarly publications, and these seem to be ok with attribution if relevant.Although better sources probably can be also found.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
FoliesTrévise stated that I lied, that I "defaced" Poliszczuk's bio, that I "restored Soviet propaganda" and that I "gamed the system." How unfortunate that you chose to ignore that.Faustian (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think MMA's point is that even a broken clock like Poliszczuk can be right twice a day - especially when some of the info is backed up by truly reliable sources like Snyder. And honestly, that's how a lot of these borderline-fringe authors work; they refer to and rely on a lot of honest-to-goodness scholarly sources but then they mix it up with a lot of unfounded very biased opinion. This is pretty much true irrespective of the topic area (god knowns we have to deal with it in other areas), which is why it takes knowledgeable editors with some background to do justice to these controversial topics.
Basically, I would avoid citing things to Poliszczuk or authors like him themselves - however, I do think it would be fine to take these kinds of sources as a basis for looking up things further. So Poliszczuk called OUN-UPA a terrorist organization. Ok, he's not reliable. But if Snyder also says the same thing then ... just cite it to Snyder and be done with it.
The work of User:FoliesTrévise. This diff: - removal of sourced information plus massive addition of irrelevent information about Poles in the Soviet Union.
That was a content issue. More seriously in that edit, User:FoliesTrévisefalsified what a source wrote. The source is Comments on Timothy Snyder's article, "To Resolve the Ukrainian Question once and for All: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943-1947" Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 1, Number 2 (Spring 1999). Originally the article read: "Between 1934 and 1938, a series of violent and sometimes deadly attacks against Ukrainians were conducted in parts of Poland. requently, Polish police watched these brutal attacks and afterwards arrested the Ukrainian victims for "disturbing the peace." The footnote within the article contained more details: "In one of many such incidents, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw reported that Polish mobs attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitory under the eyes of Polish police, a screaming Ukrainian woman was thrown into a burning Ukrainian store by Polish mobs, and a Ukrainian seminary was destroyed during which icons were desecrated and eight people were hospitalized with serious injuries and two killed. Taken from Jeffrey Burds..." The original source is available online. It reads:
"But the brutality of ethnic Poles towards ethnic Ukrainians is rarely discussed outside of tendentious nationalist accounts. The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone. Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938. Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace. Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police. In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."
User:FoliesTrévise changed the article to read: In Warsaw, on 2–3 November 1938, a militant National Radical Camp (officially delegalised after three months of existence) attacked a Ukrainian Catholic seminary as well as several institutes; set a shop on fire and hurled a woman into it. Several ONR Camp leaders had been interned in the Bereza Kartuska Detention Camp.
Nothing that he wrote was in the references he added, and indeed he used Burds' work as a reference, falsifying what Burds wrote. Burds explictly blamed this violence on followers of the Polish National Democrats. User:FoliesTrévise changed the aticle to blame it on someon else, whom the Polish government eventually arrested, creating the impression (that totally contradicts the source) that these actions were opposed by the Polish authorites.
Burds explictly blamed this violence on followers of the Polish National Democrats. - ONR was a split-off of the NDeks, basically the people who thought the ND wasn't radical enough. And in some sources they are treated together, particularly when the term "national democrats" is used to refer to a "movement" rather than a "party". So technically both statements could be correct. I don't know if that's the case here, just pointing it out. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As can be seen above, Burds only mentioned National Democrats. So at best, User:FoliesTrévise did original research and falsely attributed it to Burds. Burds' work is clear that these actions were condoned by the Polish authorities. User:FoliesTrévise twists it to make it look like the exact opposite.Faustian (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The fact that the source says "'National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization" does suggest that it's talking about ONR, since "National Democracy" wasn't an organization - that would be Stronnictwo Narodowe - but a movement. Many authors use the terms En-Deks either as a shorthand for all nationalists of this period, including ONR, or simply out of ignorance. I think in terms of the ONR thing, FT's edit is understandable, though perhaps a bit ORish - basically I think he's just relying on background knowledge. With respect to the "actions were condoned by the Polish authorities" the source does state that at least local authorities (police, etc.) and the press condoned it and that should be in there. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
User:FoliesTrévise added that ONR was banned by the Polish government etc. thus making ti look like the Polish authorities were opposed to such actions, which si the opposite of what the soruce said. He completely changed the meaning of the passage based on his OR which he supported by making false use of references.Faustian (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, ONR was in fact banned by the Polish government, though that's not in this particular source. He did change the meaning of the statement. Volunteer Marek 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Another example of twisting the meaning
Another thing User:FoliesTrévise has done. Look at this diff: . Here is the pasage this came from: (I can't cut and paste because its from googlebooks). Hrushevsky says that Galicia was more advanced and European than other parts of Ukraine, attributing this to its existence in Galicia-Volhynia, the presence of German settlers, etc. With reference to the Polish influence specifically, Hrushevsky is unambiguously negative about Polish influence. As can be seen in the diff, User:FoliesTrévise turns Hrushevsky's work on its head, erasing what he specifically wrote about Poland and replacing it with his general statement about Galicia being more advanced, and placing this in a section about Ukraine under Poland in order to create the false impression that Hrushevsky's appraisal of Polish influence was positive when clearly it was quite the opposite.
In the 1936/37 academic year only 344 Ukrainians (13.3%)in comparison to 2599 Poles were enrolled in middle school. In the 1938/9 academic year only 6 Ukrainians were accepted for tertiary education. In Poland, there was one Polish gymnasium for every 16,000 Poles but only one Ukrainian gymnazium for every 230,000 Ukrainians.
Basically, what are these % of and how is the last one calculated? I find it hard to believe that only 2600 Poles or 344 Ukrainians were enrolled in middle school - out of a population of almost 30 million. Either the term "middle school" means something other than how it is commonly used, this is data for just one town or something else is going on. And this 13.3% - 13.3 percent of what? All students enrolled? All Ukrainians of middle school age?
Ok, I looked more carefully at the last sentence and it makes sense, so no problem with that - except that "gymnasium" should be spelled consistently. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually that whole section has a lot of typos in it, both in the text and in the references. That's minor though and can be quickly corrected. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I put the 13.3% of ethnic Ukrainians in context by citing the 13.9% of ethnic Ukrainians in the 1931 Polish census, which debunks the claim of injustice in the statistics of secondary education in the Second Polish Republic. No reason has been stated for the removal of that pertinent bit of information, only a personal attack. The numbers cited need to be put in a broader context of other years, and the number of other ethnic groups at different levels, etc. Someone here has another agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, since the anti-Ukrainian measures escalated at the end of the 1930's (after Jozewski's removal in 1938 especially) none of the new numbers (from 1936/1937) placed in the article contradict the information presently in the article. As for discrimination, if in 1910 there were as many students enrolled in (Russian-language) schools in Warsaw as in Moscow, would this meant here was no discrimination? Faustian (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Since there appears to be consensus that the census number should be included, I put them there despite the fact that Faustian removed them, despite his claims to the contrary. In 1910, Ruthenians had an illiteracy rate of 60% in Galicia. Maybe that should be included? For a proper perspective, maybe we need information about language schools for other minorities, i.e., Jews, Germans, and Belorussians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.128.43 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In 1914 almost 100% of Galician Ruthenian children were enrolled in schools. Overall illiteracy rates were due to older generations not having attended school. "In 1886, only 380,000 children out of 709,000 of mandatory age were actually attending school in Galicia.35 This was remedied by the founding of 1,444 new schools between 1905 and 1914 in Galicia (as compared to only 2,080 between 1868 and 1904), half of which used Ukrainian as the language of instruction. The percentage of school-age children attending school rose from 15.4% in 1855 to 71.0% in 1900, and approached full attendance by 1914 along with the rapid increase in the number of schools.37 Source: chapter 3 of the second book listed here: . It is interesting how Polish nationalists sometimes try to give Poland credit for increased literacy rates in Galicia.Faustian (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Reliable Sources say that rural Ukrainian literacy increased under Poland. There was 6 years of war which you conveniently omit.
Well, literacy rates would improve, after the older illiterate generations would die. According to reliable sources almost 100% school attendance was achieved by 1914. So?Faustian (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland and its single language educational policies. How many Polish citizens who spoke Ukrainian as a first language studied in Vienna or Czecho-Slavakia during the inter war period? If relevant it should go in a foot note.
We are discussing the effect of the single language education policy as it affected the Polish nation's minority that spoke Ukrainian as a first language. Since the 1931 Polish census distinguished only based upon the first language spoken, it is mixing apples and oranges to compare ethnic Ukrainians who spoke Polish as a first language with those who spoke Ukrainian as a first language. Therefore, I deleted it, but feel free to add your comments to Wiki page about the census. I added a link for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No, this article is not about Ukrainian speakers but about ethnic Ukrainians. Information about ethnic Ukrainians, reliably sourced, was restored.Faustian (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
So according to Iryna Shlikhta in Nationalism as a Play: Ukrainian Nationalists Playing in the Inter-War Poland, which I have cited, the "underground" university and Polytechnical school were funded by a "Ukrainian Local Student Soviet" which was supported by the Ukrainian Nationalists. This suggests collaboration between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Communists to subvert to Polish state. Any known sources about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre misinterpretation of a non-reliable source: that actually claims the OUN "seldom" used terror and that their activities were all just a game they played. You may want to familiarize yourself with this: .Faustian (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Claims that a Sovereign nation discriminated against an ethnic minority is an exceptional claim which requires exceptional proof. Sources cited are only from the ethnic group claiming to be the victims of discrimination. More neutral sources are required to support this claim. Faustian is mischaracterizing the 1931 Polish census which counted people not by ethnicity, but by first language spoken. The educational records from Poland use the same metric, first language spoken, not ethnicity. Faustian is clearly in error here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.5.82 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Claims that a Sovereign nation discriminated against an ethnic minority is an exceptional claim - not really, as it happened (and still happens) all the time. I think it's also in Snyder and possibly in the Radziejowski source though I haven't looked at that one yet.Volunteer Marek19:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens of reliable sources for the information included in this article; indeed, every bit of information is based on a reliable source (a book published by a university, a peer-reviewed journal, a well-known historian, etc.) Please point out a specific statement in the article that is not referenced to a reliable source, and we can discuss it and remove it, rather than just remove info and disrupt the article.Faustian (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Conference Programme, Abstracts and Papers
2nd Global Conference
Monday 22nd July – Wednesday 24th July 2013
Mansfield College, Oxford
Now I understand that he considers himself superior to what Oxford University deems academically proper, but he is out of line here. This is going up. Sanctions will be requested. The Ukrainian Nationalist bias of this page violates NPOV.
Reorganization?
After World War I Poland found itself with two very different ethnic Ukrainian regions (Galicia and Volhynia), with different histories, religions, etc. Poland pursued different policies in each of these regions. Perhaps the section involving interwar Poland ought to be reorganized, with a general section (National Democrat vs. Pilsudski approaches, total Uke population, etc.) covering the background information and then two sections, one about Galicia and one about Volhynia, each with its own subheadings devoted to significant aspects of life under Polish rule. This might be less confusing and might palce the info (such as Orthodox Church destruction) in its proper geographic context.Faustian (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a large Ukrainian bias in this work so far which repeats Soviet style antipolonism without sources. The difference between the self declared Lithuanian Pilsudski and the idiot Dmowski needs to be addressed to explain where things went wrong. Ethnically mixed Catholic Galicia needs to be distinguished from Orthodox Volhnia. These were different regions culturally, ethnically, and by religion. Modern Ukrainians don't understand how different Galicia was before WWII.
195.238.180.57 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Jan Gross supports that there was much Soviet anti-Polish propaganda at work here against all things Polilsh:
Jan Tomasz Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, Princeton University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-691-09603-1, p. 35-36
Soviet Propaganda is also referenced elsewhere and should be included. Gross is cited elsewhere in Misplaced Pages on this point, and it should be addressed here to avoid the Ukrainian Nationalist POV being promoted by some here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Only information specifically described as propaganda in reliable sources can be labeled as such. No original research.Faustian (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
