Talk:Massacre of Lviv professors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Participation of OUN in Massacre of Lwów professors

In the night of July 3/4, 1941, between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. several units composed of the SS, police and field gendarmerie under the command of SS officers rushed into private homes of the professors of the higher academic institutions and arrested all men above 18 years of age found in their houses. ZYGMUNT ALBERT THE MURDER OF LWÓW PROFESSORS BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN JULY 1941

and

http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/grytsakj/formuv/r5.html
Звичайно, це не знімає питання про участь окремих українців у воєнних злочинах проти інших національностей, зокрема проти поляків. Але й тут попри спаведливі звинувачення можна зустріти перебільшення і навіть явні видумки. У першу чергу це стосується міфів про причетність українських націоналістів до розстрілу групи польських професорів у Львові (липень 1941 р.) та про участь дивізії СС "Галичина" у придушенні Варшавського повстання. Щодо першої акції, то вона була брутальною реалізацію тези Гітлера, що на одній землі не може і не повині існуватидвох панів – німців і поляків – і тому польську інтеліґенцію належить винищити. Львівський розстріл належить до того ж ряду подій, щой розправа з краківськими професорами у листопаді 1939 р. Документальні матеріали і спогади свідків доводять видуманність тези, що вбивство львівських професоорів здійснили українці (невиясненним, однак, залишається питання, чи українські студенти були причетні до складання списку страчених, і, якщо так, то чи робили це вони з власної ініціативи а чи на вимогу ґестапо) [34] [34] Kazn profesorow lwowskich. Lipiec 1941. Studia oraz relacje i dokumenty zebrane i opracowane przez Zygmunta Alberta, Wroclaw, 1989. -- Yakudza 09:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Blanking the piece of the article is rarely a way to go (it may be correct sometimes but not usually). Add an alternative view and/or say what's wrong with this one if you think so. There is plenty of the writing that say to the contrary. Check refs in the Himka's article I posted at talk:Lviv. "There has been almost no attempt on the part of the Ukrainian diaspora to confront the issue of war criminality in a less defensive and more soul-searching manner." --Irpen 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken this phrase out of article since she has a no relations to murder professor. This appropriately in article about OUN, Nachtigal or histories Lviv. I did not rely on on publications the Ukrainian diaspora, but on title of the polish historian Zygmunta Alberta. The Reference to this article with site http://www.lwow.home.pl/ was brought earlier, and text was written on its base in Wikipedia. The Fragment on ukrainian is also founded on article Zygmunta Alberta. His author, not representative diaspora, but liberal ukrainian historian Grytsak. --Yakudza 07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you made a good case to challenge the piece. I think we should place the "factual dispute" tag on the article for now and wait a bit for responces and refs that support the current version. If there is none, we'll remove the piece and the tag. I will place a tag right now. Deleting at once from such a controvercial topic is a bad idea. See Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21 --Irpen 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to understand Yakudza's English, but I'll try. As to the Ukrainian complicity in the crimes of summer of 1941 - there are zillions of documents on them. As to the case of this particular crime, such complicity is indeed mentioned only briefly in the article by Wacław Szybalski. However, it is mentioned in the collection of documents by Zygmunt Albert, as well as by Lanckorońska in her memoirs (both in her description of situation in Lwów itself and later in Stanisławów). The biography of Boy-Żeleński also mentions it (though briefly) and it's partially available online (in Polish). I really don't know how one can prove that there was no complicity and that the Ukrainian units were not there. Especially that it is quite well-established fact that the OUN collaborated with the Abwehr even before the war and that many Ukrainians (including the chiefs of OUN themselves) initially saw the Germans as liberators and tried to aid them any way they could. Of course, with time such tactics proved to be but a dream of independent Ukraine, but still the collaboration was quite strong, even until the end of WWII (mostly by Melnykist faction). Halibutt 09:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all biting the newbies who are making a good-faith effort and especially criticising their English (as well as anyone else's) is rather rude. To the issue, I standrartized Yakudza's ref and moved it to ref list where it belongs. He brought up an academic work where the participation of Ukrainian nationalists in this particular massacre is challenged (not overall existence of collaboration). Still, a number of books that claim to the contrary warrants mention of Ukrainian participation. On the other hand, I would add a word, that these accounts are not universally agreed upon (unless, of course, we have sufficient grounds to discredit the text by Hrytsak). --Irpen 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You got me wrong, I was not biting a newbie and it was not my intention to critisize his English. I was merely explaining myself in case I got some of his comments wrong. As to the rest of your comment - totally agreed. Halibutt 00:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Роланд" і "Нахтіґаль", складених з членів ОУН-б (Hrytsak). Xx236 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Jewish inhabitants of the city were shot on the spot

Not "most". Xx236 14:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

composed of the SS, police and field gendarmerie under the command of SS officers

Rather not SS. Xx236 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wolisch or Walisch?

Xx236 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the online sources cite his name as Wolisch. The pre-war business registry suggests that he might've been either Chaim Wolisch who owned a fabric store at Wałowa 2 street or Adolf Wolisch who had a clothing store at Skarbkowska 5. Check for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]...

On the other hand this source states that his name was Walisch and that he owned the "Beier i Ska" shop, not listed in the 1929 registry. Halibutt 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian point of view

Government commission for researching OUN-UPA's activity was created in Ukraine. Official report of Ukrainian historians mentions the case: it is said that there was an investigation about the massacre in Hamburg in 1966 and it was proved that brigadenfuhrer Schoengart had been responsible for the crime.

Moreover, this is confirmed by Zygmunt Albert in his article "Murder of Lwow professors" (the external link):

"Many Poles still think that the professors were massacred by the Ukrainians. If this were so, the Hamburg prosecutor would not have admitted after the war that it was done by his fellow countrymen - the Germans. When Helena Krukowska lodged a complaint at the Ludwigsburg Court concerning the murder of her husband Wlodzimierz and other professors, Prosecutor Below replied that those guilty of the murder were: Himmler, Frank, Schöngarth, SS-Standartenführer Heim and probably SS-Hauptscharführer Horst Waldenburger, but they were no longer alive and the remaining guilty individuals were still being sought. The prosecutor admitted that only the firing squad consisted of Ukrainians dressed in SS uniforms". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.113.187 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hans Krüger

In Polish Wikipedia there are two persons with this surname and it seems, that the link in the article points to the wrong man. (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kr%C3%BCger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.20.3.6 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. It seems there are two separate people. I made a Hans_Krüger disambiguation page to distinguish between the politician and the soldier. Now someone needs to write a page for Hans_Krüger (soldier). Dark Formal (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why??? What was the reasoning (whatever it was)???

This is a strange article. It talks about all the killing, but doesn't even attempt to go into the reason (whatever it may have been) of WHY the killings occurred. The article is useless without this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.184.172 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

image

The image should not be in this article. Please stop adding it. Thanks, Ostap 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And the reason why it shouldn't be is? Loosmark (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I go add images of graves with "death to Jews" in Polish written on them in The Holocaust in Poland article? If you have an image of the memorial please add it, not one that has been vandalized by some unknown fanatic. Ostap 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wikipedia's policy in regards to images of vandalised memorials and there is also a difference between a grave and a memorial. In Poland the "unknown fanatics" who vandalise important memorials tend to get caught and become known. Loosmark (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but I have to side with Ostap here, especially after reading his second comment. Some stupid vandals did that and it is not worth having this on this page. There are also no relations to what the German Nazis did then and to the idiots who vandalized the plaque with the graffiti. At least this is my opinion about it. Thanks guys.--Jacurek (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<--One reason to not include the image is just to err on the side of caution. The inscription was made by "unknown vandals", and who knows, maybe it was even a provocation made by outside parties? I think that Ostap is also right - we don't know who vandalized the image and it could've very well been some wacko extremist, not representative of anything in particular except their own idiocy. Poland's has crazy extremists too, as does every country in the world.radek (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've my doubts that it was just a random extremist vandal but OK i won't insist on that image. Maybe somebody will upload a non vandalized image of the memorial later. Loosmark (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest ensuring that the image has a proper description / categories on Commons. Perhaps there is a category that can be linked somehow? Unless there is a need to illustrate notable modern vandalism of the relevant monument(s), there is probably no pressing need to have the image here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems most people agreed this image doesn't belong here. Is that still the general consensus? Should it be removed?Faustian (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation with Soviets

Other than anti-Soviet feelings, I'm not sure what is so outrageous about the referenced phrase "Ukrainian scholar I.K Patrylyak states that out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." OUN were murdering Ukrainians and their families who cooperated with the Soviets, too. Cooperation doesn't necessarily mean working for the NKVD or being a fanatic communist (although the victim Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński might sort of qualify), it also means being part of Soviet councils - which in my opinion probably means, if the Soviets sponsored a faculty senate in the reorganized university, being a delegate in it would be considered cooperation with the Soviet regime. UPA were killing people in villages and their families, who happened to be mayors of villages, memebers of village soviets or councils, etc. under Soviet rule. Patrilyak's statement seems to fit the pattern; it cetainly doesn't seem strange that the OUN would give the Germans a list of people to kill based on cooperation with the Soviet authorities/administration.Faustian (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding to my comment - I think some of the people trying to remove this information do so because they do not want all the victims to be portrayed as Communists if they were not. This is a legitimate concern and I am open to any wording that would make this clear and the description more accurate.Faustian (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does a not "clarify" a thing. You are not trying to portray the murdered professor as Communists, you are trying to do is something much more worse. You tried to portray the professors murdered by the Nazis as people who betrayed their own country and became collaborationist. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I reported what a respected source said. It is entirely your choice to view anybody who worked for a Soviet-sponsored organization as a "collaborationist."Faustian (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My choice of view!? Listen dude stop f*cking with me. You inserted into the article the "facts" that they were "collaborating actively with the Soviet authorities" and that they "met with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet Polish government". YOU accused them of highest possible collaborationist attitude. The victims of the Nazi massacre. Remove that nonsense out of the article. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reporting the content of a cited text does not amount to making accusations or portraying people in one light or another. If that is what is said in the text, it is valid for inclusion. If you have reliable source which takes a different point of view, that would also be valid for inclusion. And curb your language please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a referenced fact that they were chosen for their cooperation with the Soviet system. The source states "Важливим є також той факт, що розстріляні у Львові професори належали до групи польської інте-лігенції, яка протягом 1940–1941 рр. активно співпрацювала з радянським режимом. Вони були членами радянських творчих спілок, депутатами рад, делегатами польської громадськості Львова, що у вересні 1940 р. відвідували Сталіна і вели з ним переговори про можливість створення прорадянського польського уряду4 (на противагу еміграційному урядові в Лондоні). Тому вбиті у Львові польські професори цілком могли трактуватися оунівцями, як "приклонники большевицько-московського імперіалізму". Адже зі 160 професорів-поляків, які мешкали у Львові на червень 1941 р., для знищення вибрали лише тих, хто "засвітився" на співпраці зі сталінським режимом. " Translation: Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." This is the link: http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Patr/12.pdf]. The book is K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. You may choose to believe or not believe certain facts, but on wikipedia we just report them.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just somebody makes some claim it does not mean is it fact. There are no "facts" here other than you trying to present a claim in a pdf as a fact. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to sit down and make my way through the Cyrillic but then decided I don't have the time. However, the question does appear to be whether Patrylyak is presenting his own academic view or if he is simply describing how the OUN saw the situation or describing the views of people like Kalba. These are different things.radek (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You can save yourself some time with googletranslate. The result is clumsy but you get a good impression. At any rate, the author clearly presents this information (what he sees) as a fact. He states that these professors cooperated with the Soviet authorities in some way and that this was why they were chosen. I already posted the exact translation above (2 comments up).Faustian (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jo0Doe's concerns

• I think someone tried to remove the misquoted scholar text - so a full text of Patrilyak suggest [6] - pages 221-223

so Patrilyak text - In May 1941 at a meeting in Krakow the leadership of Bandera's OUN faction adopted the program “Struggle and action for OUN during the war” (Ukrainian: ”Боротьба й діяльність ОУН під час війни») which outlined the plans for activities at the onset of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the western territories of the Ukrainian SSR. Section G of that document –“Orders for first days of the state living organization” Ukrainian: “Вказівки на перші дні організації державного життя» outline activity of the Bandera followers during summer 1941 In subsection of “Policy Minority” ordered: “Moskali, Poles, Jews are hostile for us ” and thus them must be “… exterminated in fight, especially those who which would resist the regime: deport them to their own lands, importantly: destroy their intelligentsia that may not be allowed into positions of power" … "so-called Polish peasants must be assimilated"… Jews must be isolated, removed from governmental positions, those who are deemed necessary may only work with an overseer... Jews' assimilation is not possible. and Patrilyak suggest such instruction as orders to extermination of ethnical minorities - Poles and Jews - becouse they Poles and Jews. Also he add information which actually added to article - in addition to be a Poles they also interract with Soviet Authorities. And at page 324 He conclude that the personnel of the Nachtigall_Battalion have all reason to murder them - becouse they are 1) Poles 2) Intelligentsia and as a last - they interract with regime. That's the full scholar text - so - addition a part of the text without a context need to be fixed to proper representation of the scholar text. P.S. Same text appeared here [7] at page 62-64 - and notable to include as separate section - may be name "Bandera's OUN and Nachtigal participation" would be intact. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is an example of original research. The author you base that on discussed the incident directly. And in that discussion he contradicts your claim. The full quote from page 323: "Важливим є також той факт, що розстріляні у Львові професори належали до групи польської інте-лігенції, яка протягом 1940–1941 рр. активно співпрацювала з радянським режимом. Вони були членами радянських творчих спілок, депутатами рад, делегатами польської громадськості Львова, що у вересні 1940 р. відвідували Сталіна і вели з ним переговори про можливість створення прорадянського польського уряду4 (на противагу еміграційному урядові в Лондоні). Тому вбиті у Львові польські професори цілком могли трактуватися оунівцями, як "приклонники большевицько-московського імперіалізму". Адже зі 160 професорів-поляків, які мешкали у Львові на червень 1941 р., для знищення вибрали лише тих, хто "засвітився" на співпраці зі сталінським режимом. Ві- домо також, що лідери бандерівської Організації в 1941 році прагнули запозичити від гітлерівців "досвідрозв'язання єврейської проблеми" (про це яскраво свідчать протоколи 1-ї конференції ОУН(Б) у липні 1941 року) *, але реально організованого та дієвого карально-репресивного апарату бандерівці не мали. Поодинокі відділи української народної міліції залучалися до антиєврейських акцій, але вони виконували тільки допоміжні функції при німецьких спецзагонах. Наприклад, Я. Стецько у своєму листі-звіті до Бандери від 25 червня 1941 р. відкрито писав: "Робимо міліцію, що поможе жидів усувати" 5. Можна з великою долею впевненості стверджувати, що окремі члени ОУН таки брали участь у винищувальних акціях, а також підбурювали до цього звичайних обивателів, розповсюджуючи листівки з такими недвозначними зверненнями: "Народе! Знай! Москва, Мадяри, Жидова – це все твої вороги. Нищ їх. Знай! Твоїм проводом є Провід українських націоналістів ОУН. Вождем є Степан Бандера. Твоєю ціллю є Соборна Самос- тійна Українська Держава. Твій шлях – шлях Української Національної Революції. Шлях збройної боротьби. Шлях ОУН" 6. Тож теоретично бійці ДУН мали цілком достатньо ідеологічних підстав для знищення польських науковців. Однак ще більше підстав для їхньої ліквідації мали німецькі спецгрупи, що керувалися наказами шефа нацистської поліції безпеки та служби безпеки, обергруппенфюрера СС Р.Гейдріха від 2 червня та 1 липня 1941 р. в яких наголошувалося на необхідності знищувати комуністичних функціонерів, комісарів, євреїв– держслужбовців, пропагандистів, а також польську інтелігенцію7." The admitedly clumsy googletranslation: ""What is important is the fact that shot in Lviv professors belonged to a group of Polish-lihentsiyi interests, which during 1940-1941 he actively cooperated with the Soviet regime. They were members of the Soviet artistic unions, members of councils and delegates of the Polish city public that September 1940 Stalin visited and conducted talks with him about the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish uryadu4 (as opposed to government in exile in London). Therefore murdered in Lviv Polish professors might well be interpreted insurgents as "pryklonnyky Bolshevik Moscow imperialism." Because of the 160 professors -Poles who lived in Ukraine in June 1941, chose to destroy only those "light up" in cooperation with the Stalinist regime. Bi-It is known also that the leaders of Bandera in 1941 sought to borrow from the Nazis' Jewish dosvidrozv'yazannya problem "(as the record clearly the 1 st Conference of OUN (B) in July 1941) *, but actually organized and effective punitive and repressive apparatus had Banderas. Single Ukrainian folk police departments involved in anti-Jewish actions, but they performed only auxiliary function in German Riot. For example, J. Stetsko in his letter report to Bandera from June 25, 1941 Open wrote: "Do the police that will help eliminate the Jews" 5. It is fairly confident to say that some members of the OUN did involved in destructive actions, and strove to the ordinary inhabitants, distributing leaflets with the following unambiguous appeal: "People! Know! Moscow, Hungarians, Jew - all your enemies. Nysch them. Know! Wires led thee is of Ukrainian Nationalists OUN. Is a leader Stepan Bandera. By Your goal is to be constantly Cathedral Samos-Ukrainian state. Your path - the path of the Ukrainian National Revolution. The path of armed struggle. OUN Way "6. So theoretically fighters Tung had enough of ideological reasons for the destruction of Polish scientists. But even more reason for their elimination had the German spetshrupy that followed the orders of the chief Nazi security police and security services, SS Obergruppenfuhrer R. Heydrich on June 2 and July 1, 1941 which stressed the need to destroy the communist functionaries, the commissioners of Jewish officials, propagandists, and Polish intelihentsiyu7." The chapter then goes on (I'm not going to cut and paste the whole thing here) to debunk various claims about Nachtigal's involvement. Any third party ought to read it, here is the link: [8]. If you can't read Ukrainian, use googletranslate. The result is clumsy but you'll get an idea and you will clearly see how Jo0doe misrepresents Patrilyak's work.

Basically, Patrilyak's chapter describes how the murder of the Polish intelligenstia would match the OUN's goals. Then Patrilyak states that doing so meets the German goals even better. The source then goes into detail about how the OUN didn't or couldn't do it and debunks claims to the contrary. Jo0Doe refers only to the first part of Patrilyak's chapter in order to create the false picture that Patrilyak's work supports the idea that Ukrainians were the perpetrators of the massacre. As usual Jo0doe totally falsifies what the source actually says, by quoting just a part of it in order to create the false impression that the source says the opposite of what it actually says.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Faustian, this claim that proffesors were Soviet collaborators and that was the reason they were murdered has to be removed because is TOTALY inaccurate.--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Inclusion of a phrase acceptable

This was added to the article: "According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." This statement was based on the following source: І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 I.K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. pg. 323. In that source the author, a professor at Kiev's National University, writes: "Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." (verify through googltranslate).

Some editors object because they feel that the information is false. IS it acceptable per policy to include it? Is it wrong to remove it because some editors strongly feel it is false?Faustian (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I had previous history of contact with some people involved in this and have Polish-German origin you shouldn't treat me't treat me as an editor who was requested here, since I could easily be accused of bias. But still I have some questions that I believe are needed:

• The pdf in question is unreadable to me. I can use googletranslate which gives some interesting further information if it is correct, but is a very messy translation... One editor mention that source of this information is based on memoirs of Ukrainian nationalist claims. Is this correct?
• From what I could read from googletranslate(so it might be very badly translated) the author in this publication defends OUN as performing "anti-colonial" struggle. As far I remember they were involved in Holocaust and murder of Poles? He also spends an amount of space to claiming Jews are murdering Palestinians,since they believe in mission from God-(again all of this is based on google translation-which isn't perfect to put it mildly)? I also spotted a sentence when he wrote about along the lines of "understandable reaction to Jews by Ukrainians in WW2" Is this is correct or is googletranslate translating wrongly? He also does spend time defending(well looking at the messy google translation anyway, so I could interpret it wrongly) a well known Nazi Oberlander who advocated removal of Jews and Poles before the war but supported Ukrainian national movement in WW2. If those sentences are indeed true, than I guess it speaks poorly about neutrality of the publication-it seems a bit politicised and not that very reliable...
• Since it is primarily about OUN this is not a good source of knowledge about completely different topic. As others noticed extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and sources. This doesn't seem to be such a source.

Finally- sources of information about the murder that I have available speak clearly that the victims were not invovled in politics at any way, including possible Soviet cooperation. Anyway-those are just my remarks, don't treat them as definite, and of course another party needs to respond which isn't connected to the debate here at all. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "anti-colonial struggle" and committing murder/atrocities against civilians are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the source claims the OUN's struggle was anticolonial does not detract from the source's credibility. In that context the source compares the atrocities committed by the OUN to those committed by Algerians against French civilians, Africans against other Africans and European civilians, and Jews against Palestinians and Europeans (probably British). This comparison is about a paragraph or two long in a long chapter. The source also details OUN's unsavory antisemitism and calls to exterminate Jews and others; it seems rather nuetral. The article is about OUN and the OUN members are the ones said to have identified the Polish victims as people who cooperated with the Soviets, thus this topic is very relevent to this article. As for other sources "you have available" - by all means include them too, if they are reliable. This question is about this source only.Faustian (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait, so you are saying the article in effect mentions Jews as colonisers of Ukraine or the country as their colony(again I don't know cyrilic nor Ukrainian, and base my knowledge on messy googletranslation and your statements) since it mentions the activities(which involved murder of Jews) as "anti-colonial"? Sorry Faustian but that doesn't speak very neutral to me, and neither does the attempt to compare Holocaust with Jewish-Palestinian conflict.This seems to be very biased and politicised source if what you are writing is true.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it does not state that Jews were "colonizers" nor does it mention them as such. It simply compares the the violent, civilian-killing activities of the OUN with the violent, civilian-killing activities of Africans, Algerians, etc. This is done as an aside in about a paragraph or two of a very lengthy article. Why are you focused on it? Does the author's comparison, in your opinion, render him unable to separate fact from fiction or lead him to lie about the Polish professors? Is that what you are claiming? I note that you are also Polish. My impression from this issue is that these victims are seen among Poles as "sinless martyrs" and that facts indicating a more complex situation are triggering all sorts of nationalistic feelings. This is why I am interested in the opinions of non-involved people on this topic, not only from a history perspective but also from a policy perspective. So far only one non-Pole has entered this conversation, and his opinion was to keep this information in the article. Faustian (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it does not state that Jews were "colonizers""

• Why does he then mention killing them as "anti-colonial struggle"?. Combined with sentences about "understandable" attitude towards Jews, comapring Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Holocaust this indicates anything but a reliable source. It seems the author goes to a certain effort to defend OUN in his writing. Thus trying to rationalise murder of innocent victims with "soviet cooperation" just as murder of Jews as "anti-colonial struggle".
• I note that you are also Polish."So far only one non-Pole has entered this conversation, and his opinion was to keep this information in the article""impression from this issue is that these victims are seen among Poles as "sinless martyrs""

Sorry but ethnically based attacks and applying views to a whole ethnic group are very offensive and I hope they won't be found on Wikipedia. It seems you can't distinguish nationality with a persons arguments-which speaks hardly about your neutrality in the matter.For the record I am Polish-German.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you quote the author explictly stating that killing Jews was an anti-colonial struggle? Could you state where the author explictly states that the Holocaust was an "anti-colonial struggle?" He does none of those things. It seems you are building a straw man in order to try to discredit this source. And no, when I state that only Poles object to this information being in the article it is not an "ethnically based attack." There is an unfortunate pattern on Eastern European history articles where some people tend to lose objectivity in defence of their "nation." This seems to fit the pattern. If there were a situation in which information about Ukrainians resulted in the protest of only Ukrainians the same sort of comment would be just as appropriate. And it wouldn't be an "ethnically based attack."Faustian (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Could you quote the author explictly stating that killing Jews was an anti-colonial struggle?"

Sure: Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification їнshould be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle There are other quotes like: no surprise that the young insurgents quite sincerely hated the Jews I could try to find more, since only a portion of the text was translated. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate pattern on Eastern European history articles where some people tend to lose objectivity in defence of their "nation." Trying to justify OUN mass murder with "soviet cooperation" of the victims seems similiar.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I see here that Molobo has been blocked, presumably for some sort of ethnic edit warring: [9]. That explains something.Faustian (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian please concentrate on subject of the discussion. Btw what does :в міжвоєнній польській Речі Посполитій антисемі-тизм був мало не державною ідеологією mean?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is actually quite relevent. You were banned for a long time for your ethnic-based edit warring. This puts your efforts here in their porper perspective. See the coment at the end of the talk page for the translation.Faustian (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked as well. Do concentrate on the message not on the person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was never blocked for anything to do with nationalist issues, unlike you.Faustian (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

About political activity, a source if somebody is interested

This source[10] mentions that the victims had no political acvitity to speak of, and no special relations with Soviet rule. Większość profesorów w ogóle nie udzielała się politycznie, ani społecznie. Profesorowie Franciszek Groer, Witold Nowicki, Stanisław Ostrowski i Rudolf Weigl, nie mówiąc już o prof. Bartlu, byli zdecydowanie tolerancyjni i dalecy od wszelkiego nacjonalizmu, nie wiązali się też w jakiś szczególny sposób z władzą sowiecką. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I added this info to the article. It's from a newspaper and written by a historian. I doubt it's on the same level as a book published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of sciences and written by a foremost specialist on the topic (OUN), but it certainly meets criteria for inclusion.Faustian (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt it's on the same level as a book published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of sciences"

The publication you mentioned has serious problems. Mentioning murder of Jews as "anti-colonial" struggle for instance(if google translator is correct of course) or attitude to Jews by OUN "understandable". It seems to be a highly politicised publication.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except he doesn't do that. And objecting to an author's opinion on page 355 does not mean he lied on page 320 (I made up the page numbers).Faustian (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you made the newspaper article have precedence over the scholarly work bythe Institute of Histroy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. I could have written that the Poles "claim" also, but didn't - I kept it nuetral. You should do the same. Let's see what happens through RFC.Faustian (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Except he doesn't do that".Except he does:according to googletranslator:

Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification їнshould be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle

• no surprise that the young insurgents

quite sincerely hated the Jews So Googletranslator has wrong translation? As to your "scholarly work"-there are serious doubts about its credibility. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So you can parse sentences together to make it seem like something it's not? Could you write the paragraph so we get what the author actually wrote? Or at least give the page number where you got this from? Faustian (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove or keep information

Looks like 4 people want the information to stay, 3 want it removed, 2 have not offered an opinion on whether or not to keep it. If you want to count the block histories of the participants though it's very lopsided in favor of "remove." I'm still hoping some uninvolved people aren't scared off and add their opinion to the RFC. I will wait a day or three before making any changes to the article myself, in order to avoid edit warring while waiting for more opinions.Faustian (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging Sources

Faustian, instead of "counting votes" and requesting "help"[[11]], please focus your energy on finding the sources for your exceptional claim. (..professors were Soviet collaborators and that was why they were murdered by the Nazis..) Since you brought this claim forward, you need to back it up with satisfactory sources. One PDF article in Ukrainian language you "came across" in far from being satisfactory. To my knowledge, serious sources backing up your claim do not exist. I can’t find anything that would confirm that. Remember, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. So far you failed to provide them instead focusing on attacking editors who do not agree with you.--Jacurek (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. " The source for the statement I included was a book written by a professor of history at Kiev's National UNiversity and published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Here is the book's title page: [12]. It clearly meets the criteria of a reliable source according to wikipedia guidelines. Since the entire book is online, it also meets the criteria for verifiablity.Faustian (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable".

So do you have a peer review of the book? J.kunikowski (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Info published by academic journals or academic institutes/universities are by defimition "peer-reviewed." "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. " Faustian (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses Reputable and well regarded Faustian. I believe in this case the publication source isn't very widely reckognised as one of the most reputable and well regarded academic presses in the world covering Nazi collaboration, but more of an provincial one(with all due respect).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So according to you the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is neither reputable nor well regarded? Faustian (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In general-no, not at all. But there is somewhat a controversy regarding research in Ukraine on Nazi era collaboration with Nazis and OUN/UPA. See for example this publication:

[13] President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Was this historian specifically mentioned and was the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences specifically mentioned in that criticism? Becuse there are unaffiliated "historians" out there. If not the comment above does not apply here, except as your personal implication.Faustian (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Discuss content not editors. The dispute cannot be resolved if you focus on each other rather than on content. This applies to everyone as well as outside commentators. Let's see if we can at least properly explain what the dispute is about - see my following comment (coming up next).radek (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for translation.

Faustian I request you translate us the following text find on page 334:

Така "інформація", як уже зазначалося, падала на благо-датний ґрунт з двох причин: по-перше, через те, що в міжвоєнній польській Речі Посполитій антисемі-тизм був мало не державною ідеологією, по-друге, у зв'язку з тим, що євреї традиційно складали значну частину серед службовців НКВС, а єврейська мо-лодь, відчувши, що її нарешті не переслідують на державному рівні, після вересня 1939 року активно включилася в радянське політичне та соціальне життя.

Thank you. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Alo, alo Faustian are you there? What does в міжвоєнній польській Речі Посполитій антисемі-тизм був мало не державною ідеологією mean? J.kunikowski (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It states that in interwar Poland antisemitism was almost a state ideology. Are you now going to seriously argue that it wasn't almost a state ideology?Faustian (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim is so completely absurd it's even a loss of time arguing against. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing absurd at all about that claim. From the wikipedia article, fully referenced:

With the influence of the Endecja party growing, antisemitism gathered new momentum in Poland and was most felt in smaller towns and spheres in which Jews came into direct contact with Poles, such as in Polish schools or on the sports field. Further academic harassment, such as the introduction of ghetto benches, which forced Jewish students to sit in section of the lecture halls reserved exclusively for them, anti-Jewish riots, and semi-official or unofficial quotas (Numerus clausus) introduced in 1937 in some universities halved the number of Jews in Polish universities between independence and the late 1930s. The restrictions were so inclusive that, while Jews made up 20.4% of the student population in 1928, by 1937 their share was down to only 7.5%.[66]

Although many Jews were educated, they were excluded from most of the relevant occupations, including the government bureaucracy. A good number therefore turned to the liberal professions, particularly medicine and law. In 1937 the Catholic trade unions of Polish doctors and lawyers restricted their new members to Christian Poles (in a similar manner the Jewish trade unions excluded non-Jewish professionals from their ranks after 1918). A series of professional and trade unions, including those for lawyers and physicians, enacted "Aryan clauses" expelling Polish Jews from their ranks.[67] The bulk of Jewish workers were organized in Jewish trade unions under the influence of the Jewish Labor Bund, which recognized the special cultural needs of the Jewish population, as well as special conditions arising from official discrimination against Jews in certain professions.[68] Jews were virtually excluded from Polish government jobs during this period.[69]

Complex and long history shaped Polish attitudes towards the Jews and Jewish attitudes towards the Poles, but the anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland had reached its zenith in the years leading to the Second World War.[70]

Demonstration of Polish students demanding implementation of "ghetto benches" at Lwów Polytechnic (1937).Between 1935 and 1937 seventy-nine Jews were killed and 500 injured in anti-Jewish incidents.[71] National policy was such that jobless Jews, who largely worked at home or in small shops due to discrimination in employment, were excluded from welfare benefits.[72]

The national boycott of Jewish businesses and advocacy for their confiscation was promoted by the Endecja party, which introduced the term "Christian shop". A national movement to prevent the Jews from kosher slaughter of animals, with animal rights as the stated motivation, was also organized.[73] Violence was also frequently aimed at Jewish stores, and many of them were looted. At the same time, persistent economic boycotts and harassment, including property-destroying riots, combined with the effects of the Great Depression that had been very severe on agricultural countries like Poland, reduced the standard of living of Poles and Polish Jews alike to the extent that by the end of the 1930s, a substantial portion of Polish Jews lived in grinding poverty.[74] As a result, on the eve of the Second World War, the Jewish community in Poland was large and vibrant internally, yet (with the exception of a few professionals) also substantially poorer and less integrated than the Jews in most of Western Europe.[citation needed]

The main strain of anti-semitism in Poland during this time was motivated by Catholic religious beliefs and centuries-old myths such as the blood libel. This religious-based anti-semitism was sometimes joined with an ultra-nationalistic stereotype of Jews as disloyal to the Polish nation.[75] On the eve of World War II, many typical Polish Christians believed that there were far too many Jews in the country and the Polish government became increasingly concerned with the "Jewish Question". Some politicians were in favor of mass Jewish emigration from Poland.

By the time of the German invasion in 1939, antisemitism was escalating, and hostility towards Jews was a mainstay of the right-wing political forces post-Piłsudski regime and also the Catholic Church. Discrimination and violence against Jews had rendered the Polish Jewish population increasingly destitute, as was the case throughout much of Central and Eastern Europe. Despite the impending threat to the Polish Republic from Nazi Germany, there was little effort seen in the way of reconciliation with Poland's Jewish population. In July 1939 the pro-government Gazeta Polska wrote, "The fact that our relations with the Reich are worsening does not in the least deactivate our program in the Jewish question--there is not and cannot be any common ground between our internal Jewish problem and Poland's relations with the Hitlerite Reich."[76][77] Escalating hostility towards Polish Jews and an official Polish government desire to remove Jews from Poland continued until the German invasion of Poland.[78]

Actually googletranslate gives something more:

Jews traditionally made much of among the NKVD, and the Jewish mo-lod, sensing that she finally pursued at the state level since September 1939 actively involved in the Soviet political and social life. This fits a pattern of attacks on Jews in the text.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except there is no such pattern in the text - you made it up. Do you doubt that Jews after having been horribly repressed by the Poles didn't take aprt in social and political life under the Soviets?Faustian (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, now Jews were horribly repressed by the Poles? J.kunikowski (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your objective approach.Faustian (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian, you are going against the opinion of at least 4-5 editors here. The claim you introduced into the article that the victims were Soviet collaborators and that is why they were murdered is against all historical facts and falls into category of "blaming the victims". I'm going again to remove this false claim from the article. Please do not edit war against the consensus. If you find any scholarly material that will back up your claim please post it here and we will discuss it. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, 3 editors are against this info being in the article. You and Molobo, both of whom have block histories for edit warring for nationalist Polish activities on wikipedia. And another guy with almost no edit history who claims to be related to one of the victims. This is "consensus?" I'm not gojng to revert now because I'm not interested in edit-warring. There are 4 people opposed to the move - me, Matt Lunker, Gallassi, and Miacek have reinstated this info, per the edit history. So where is the consensus on your side? You are going against consensus and changing the article before the RFC goes through. Faustian (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lunker opposed the removal because at the time there was an edit war going on, he did not participate in the following discussion, you are we free to invite him to participate again. J.kunikowski (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He opposed it because, on his talk page, " The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Don't blank material which is verifiable under this criterion even if you believe it to be incorrect. If you regard the text as untrue or defamatory, add your reliable, cited text to show a counter position. Don't censor material you don't like or disagree with." So, three want the info removed, four want it to stay.Faustian (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian your manipulations are starting to get a bit boring. Mutt Lunker opposed the removal while there was an edit warring en course. He did not participate in the current discussion which tries to establish a consensus. But please ask him to confirm his position to avoid any doubts. J.kunikowski (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Although J.kunikowski's edit warring was a major concern of mine, Faustian's quote from our conversation on my talk page is very highly pertinent to this discussion, as I'm sure J.k knows. Verifiable material, in policy terms, should not be just blanked simply because someone believes it to be untrue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable doesn't mean reliable, you can verify that Obama is a space lizard, Holocaust didn't happen or that Earth is flat. Such theories though are not reliable and not included in articles about the subject. They are however reliable when describing people making them.See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Both of above points apply here. A claim that there is ethnic wide attempt to cover up alledged revelations has been already made so the conspiracy criticism has been made as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the material was "just blanked simply because someone believe it to be untrue" is completely misleading. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Due to the failed national policies, numerous representatives of Poland's ethnic minorities (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews) eagerly welcomed the fall of the Polish state, initially collaborating with the Soviet invaders, who skillfully played on the national card, claiming the time of reckoning had arrived for the 'oppressed Ukrainians' and other minorities [14]. I think no-one can deny that. The question here is, whether the professors murdered in 1941 had really personally (closely) collaborated with the Soviets or not. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe. But how is this relevant to this particular dispute? This isn't about Ukrainians collaborating with the Soviets against the Poles. It's about certain Poles SUPPOSEDLY collaborating with the Soviets (for unspecified reasons). You've flipped it. If you were arguing that the Ukrainians collaborated with the Soviets to get back at the Poles your statement would make sense (it'd be wrong, more or less, but it would make sense). This is about whether or not Poles collaborated with the Soviets who - according to you - claimed that the time of reckoning for the oppressed Ukrainians had come. Premises => Conclusion. It doesn't make sense.radek (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed there was some dispute here, whether Jews (and other ethnic minorities) had been oppressed or not, hence my comment. Yes, the professors were Polish, and I said, it has to be ascertained whether they too collaborated with the Soviets or not. There were quite a number of Polish leftists like Wasilewska and the whole Nowe Widnokręgi group who did. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasilewska cannot be compared with the people massacred at Lwow in any way, she was a communist from at least the late 20s and early 30s. Most of the murdered people were completely apolitical. Also the source does not claim that the ethnic minorities were oppressed, the source claims that the in interwar Poland "antisemitism was almost a state ideology". That's completely untrue, Piłsudski did not tolerate right wingers too well, many of them were sitting in jails. The only political party which had some anti-Semitic views was in the opposition. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Polish right-wingers such as Stanislaw Grabski also worked with the Soviet regime (Timothy Snyder, Reconstruction of nations, pg. 180). IF the executed were sympathetic to ND then this makes their cooperation m ore likely. Your claim that the Polish interwar state was not antisemitic seems to show a shocking lack of knowledge about Poland's history (you didn't know the antisemtite took over after Pilsudski's death?). Examples of Polish antismitic policies are listed in detail in this section.Faustian (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So Polish right-wingers nationalist who were anti-Semite worked for the Soviet regime who had a high numbers of Jews in the NKVD because the Jews were oppressed by the Polish anti-Semite. Faustian the confusing &@$# you produced in the last two days is embarrassing. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. Polish right-wingers wanted an ethnically pure Polish state and were willing even to work with the Communists to make sure this happened. Despite being vicious antisemites, Polish right-wingers also hated Nazi Germany (one major Polish political thinker, Feliks Koneczny actually claimed that Nazism was a form of "Jewish civilizational type") which would also prompt them to be more likely to work with the Soviets. Faustian (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What you write above is a non sequitur. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński is mentioned by Piotrowski [15] in line with Putrament and Wasilewska as one of those who found refuge in Lviv and were recruited by the Soviets and possibly qualified as collaborationists, at least in the eyes of those who eventually murdered him. Nevertheless, Faustian, if it is a known fact that the killers selected those professors (out of a figure many times higher) to be murdered based on their pro-Soviet activities, it shouldn't be difficult to find additional sources that would help to convince others and provide additional details. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the issue with TBZ here [16]. Yes, he was in fact a "Soviet collaborator". But his death in these murders was actually an accident; he wasn't one of the people that the OUN included on the list which they gave to the Nazis. And it's the people on the list who are supposed to have been "Soviet collaborators" (or cooperators or whatever).

Ay, Miacek, I'm sure you know how these things work in respect to totalitarian regimes. It's just like whenever some Estonian person professes less than full enthusiasm for the Soviet Union there will be people out there who will accuse them of being "fascist" or "Nazi collaborators". Of course there were some honest to goodness collaborators in Estonia during World War II but quite often such charges are just ideologically motivated attacks to discredit someone or excuse some crime. Same thing here. There were honest to goodness Soviet collaborators among Poles like Wasilewska or Putrament. But that doesn't mean that every Pole killed by the Nazis in Lwow had been a "Soviet collaborator". In fact, putting people like Bartel (who refused cooperation with Stalin at the risk of his own life) or Rancki (who had been a prisoner of the NKVD only a few days before he was re-arrested by the Nazis and murdered) in the group of "Soviet collaborators" is ... well, "weird" to say the least. It definitely falls in the "exceptional claims" category.radek (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we stick to what the source actually says rather than what some people frantically misinterpret it saying. Nowhere was it written that everyone killed was a Soviet collaborator. Here is is what it said: "Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepreted by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." If you were familiar with the actions of the OUN you would know that they murdered, for example, Ukrainians who worked as village mayors or who took on any administrative positions (i.e., were on village Soviets aka village councils; worked as accountants, etc). So active cooperation with the Soviet regime would have meant, for example, being on a faculty committee in the Soviet-reorganized university, or registering students on behalf of that Soviet-sponsored university, or organizing a series of lectures sponsored by the new Soviet authorities, or that sort of thing. There is nothing inherently exceptional or wild about statement that professors invovled in such activities were the ones singled out for destruction. Indeed, since out of 160 professors 40 were chosen for death, what do you think the criteria were? It's quite logical that they would involve work with the Soviet regime in some capacity, especially given that the Nazis were at war with the Soviets. Indeed, it would seem exceptional to claim that the worst enemies of the Soviet regime were the ones singled out for death by the Nazis, wouldn't it?

What the Germans were thinking is reflected in this description of the interrogation by a proffesor of German background who was released. This is what his interogator said: ""You dog, you are a German and have betrayed your German country. You served the Bolsheviks! Why didn't you, when it was possible, depart with all the other Germans to the West? " (emphasis mine).

I found these comments about the proessors on an Axis history forum. They aren't RS for purposes of inclusion into the article, of course and are not all necessarily my opinions. But the comments, written by a "Michael Mills", do bring up interesting points to consider:

"the German security police regarded the Polish academics executed as collaborators with the former Soviet occupiers.

That was certainly the case with the former Polish prime minister, Bartel, who was being wooed by both the Soviets and the British-backed Polish Government-in-Exile as a possible leader of an anti-German Polish resistance movement to be based in the Soviet-occupied areas of Poland.

In that regard, I recall that the late Dr Joachim Hoffmann, in his "Stalin's War of Extermination", found evidence that, before the German invasion, the Soviet Government had begun to recruit ethnic Poles for all-Polish units of the Red Army. That suggests that Stalin had changed his policy towards the Polish minority in the area annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939 from one of repression to one of turning it into an ally against Germany in the conflict that was clearly coming. Soviet dealings with former Polish prime minister Bartel probably formed part of that endeavour.

It is possible that Germany had found out about the Soviet moves in regard to the Polish minority (the Ukrainian nationalist underground would have been a likely source), and set out to nip any pro-Soviet activity in the bud.

There is a number of indications that the executed academics may have been collaborating with the Soviet authorities.

1. They were not deported in 1940 or 1941, in one of the waves of deportations by which the Soviet occupiers set out to destroy the former Polish ruling class in the region. As members of the intelligentsia, the executed academics would certainly have been seen as part of that ruling class (particularly former Prime Minister Bartel), and the fact that they were not deported suggests that they had made some sort of accommodation with the Soviet regime. Perhaps they were part of the Soviet plan to set up a Polish anti-German movement in East Galicia, as a base for subverting German rule in the Generalgouvernement.

2. They had not taken the opportunity to move west to the German zone of occupation in the last months of 1939, under the population-exchange agreements in place at that time. One of the arrested academics, Groer, was specifically accused of that. (According to the information in the link, Groer survived, indicating that he probably made a deal with the Germans, despite the denials on the link).

Under the population exchanges agreed between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, ethnic Ukrainians and Belorussians west of the demarcation line could move into the Soviet Occupation Zone, and ethnic Poles and Germans east of the line could move into the German Occupation Zone. Movements under the agreement were quite substantial; for example, some 300,000 Jews from West Poland moved to the Soviet Zone (the German even encouraged the Jews to claim to be "Ukrainians of Mosaic religion", in order to be eligible for transfer).

Ethnic Poles also moved west into the Generalgouvernment. These were mainly landowners and others who had been expropriated by the Soviet occupation regime. After the German invasion in 1941, many of them returned to their former homes, so Gerlach tells us in "Kalkulierte Morde", and collaborated with the Germans as managers of their former properties.

It was not until the population exchanges were completed that the Soviet authorities began the deportation, in February 1940, of the members of the Polish ruling class that had remained in the Soviet Occupation Zone, and was still anti-Soviet. At a later date, the 300,000 Jewish refugees from West Poland were also evacuated to Central Asia (most were settled in Tashkent); the reason for that is not clear, and may have been connected with Soviet preparations for the coming war with Germany.

3. The arrested academics and their families had a considerable store of valuables that was confiscated by the German security police. One wonders why those valuables had not been previously seized by the Soviet authorities, as part of the general expropriation of the Polish ruling class that was carried. It may be that the persons concerned had been allowed to keep their personal property in return for collaborating with the Soviet authorities, either in the administration of the annexed parts of Poland, or in the setting up of a Polish anti-German movement based in East Galicia, or both.

On the basis of the above, I would suggest that the persons arrested and executed in Lwow were part of Soviet moves to subvert German rule in the Generalgouvernement in the context of the lead-up to the German-Soviet war, and had been fingered to the German authorities by the Ukrainian underground.

It is noteworthy that the Polish-Jewish historian, Jan Tomasz Gross, in his book "Revolution From Abroad", came to the conclusion that until 1941 Soviet repression of the Polish population in the Soviet-annexed areas was worse than German repression in the Generalgouvernment. That makes the survival of the Lwow academics under Soviet rule all the more suspicious."

Now, setting aside all that, the fact is that the claim we are discussing was written by one of Ukraine's leading authorities on the OUN and published by the Academy of Sciences of that country. Whether he is wrong or not, biased or not, this in itself, would make his claim notable enough for inclusion in the article. Indeed, that's how it was prsented - not as a fact, but as the statement of a historian who is a member fo the Institue of Histroy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. This is what that guy thinks. It seems pure censorship to exclude his statement, based on some people thinking it is inaccurate or not liking what he has to say.Faustian (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, I'd suggest that you exercise extreme caution not just with quoting commentators on internet forums, but especially with any that are approvingly quoting Joachim Hoffmann; whether or not Hoffman himself was a Holocaust denier is not 100% certain, but the fact that he is extremely popular with the far right and the Holocaust denial crowd is undeniable. A few lines above that extensive comment this Michael Mills person says: This story has all the hallmarks of a Soviet purge of members of the Polish intelligentsia in the territories occupied in 1939, later blamed on the Germans. - i.e. initially he claims that this massacre was actually perpetuated by the Soviets and then blamed on the Nazis, Katyn style. Right, reliable guy. From some of the other comments on the forum it appears like this Mills person is the resident anti-Polish Nazi-apologist on that forum. Why you're repeating his nonsense here?

And btw, just because the Soviets TRIED to get some of the professors to collaborate (like Bartel) that doesn't mean that the professors AGREED TO collaborate (Bartel refused). And again, explain the presence of people like Rancki on the OUN death list, who WERE in fact repressed by the Soviets.

And the question still is whether the author is presenting OUN's views, presenting OUN's claims to the Nazis, or is agreeing with these.radek (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian, once again.. 10th time I think i repeating myself...please find reliable sources that confirm that the murdered proffessors were Soviet colaborators and that is why they were murdered by the Nazis and please STOP your own speculations such as “why the Soviets did not rob the professors” etc. etc. etc.. There is no point of continuing this conversation until you bring to the table RELIABLE SOURCES instead of your own analyses.--Jacurek (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source is deemed reliable by the tird party person commenting on it. You can repeat all you want that it is not reliable, but the book published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences was deemed reliable here, on the reliable sources noticeboard: [17]. So do you have any arguments other than your false claim that it is unrelaible, to censor this information?05:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The author, Patrilyak, is clearly presenting his views. There is no editorialization of that passage, eh doesn't say "according to..." or "it is claimed that..." - it is the view of Patrilyak. And Patrilyak is a leading authority on the OUN from Ukraine, who was tasked to write the large book about the OUN by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. This in itself makes Patrilyak's claims - whether or not they are correct - important enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Don't you think? And if not, why not?

Regarding Joachim Hoffmann, I wasn't familiar with him, but thanks for the heads up. I don't know or care who "Michael Mills" is but he seems to have brought up some important points that would make someone legitimately suspicious of them. Do you have any comments about anything I wrote other than Hoffman?Faustian (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The dispute

The passage under dispute is the following:

The lists were prepared by Ukrainian students associated with OUN.[2][3]. According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government. [4] According to Polish accounts, however, the victims were not involved in any politics.

• The first sentence, "The lists were prepared by Ukrainian students associated with OUN": I believe that this is NOT a matter of dispute. But it has implications for the sentences that follow.
• The second sentence, "According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government.". This is the "bone of contention" here.
• The third sentence According to Polish accounts, however, the victims were not involved in any politics". This is subject to dispute in so far as it contradicts the second sentence.

Ok. The main dispute is over the Patrylyak text. There's two issues here:

Is Patrylayk presenting his own view? Or is he presenting the view of the OUN students? Or is he presenting the view of the OUN students and at the same time evaluating it? I.e. is the proper statement to be included in the article that:

1)"According to Patrylyak, many of the Polish professors executed in this massacre had collaborated/cooperated with the Soviets and this is the reason why they were executed by the Nazis."

2)"According to Patrylyak, the OUN students who prepared the execution lists chose professors whom THEY believed to have cooperated with the Soviets, and as a result these professors were executed by the Nazis"

3)"According to Patrylyak, the OUN students told the Nazis that these particular professors had cooperated with the Soviets to get them executed" (regardless of whether this was true or not).

If Patrylyak is just documenting the OUN view then it's the last one. If he is giving his own opinion then it sounds like a combo of 1 and 2. The so called "facts" - per some of the discussion above - appears to be a mix of 2) and 3). Some of the people executed did in some way (often very minor) "cooperate" with the Soviets. But some of the executed had actually been repressed by the Soviets. The third source suggests that most of them had little to do with politics either way (and hey, if you know any mathematicians the fact that most of these academics just wanted to go on cranking out theorems and didn't really care about politics one way or another makes a lot of sense).

One of the basic problem here is getting an accurate translation of the Patrylyak text. This, I think, is part of the reason why there's such strong objections - it's not clear whether he is presenting his own views or those of the OUN.

That's just the first issue.

The second issue is over the reliability of the Patrylyak source. So if he is saying something like 1) or 2), what is he basing this on? As some other editors have pointed out above, he appears to cite some OUN-affiliated nationalists as well as people involved in the massacre in the text. If he is citing them just to present their views then we're back to "Patrylyak is presenting the views of the OUN". But if he is citing these - extremist - sources to support the contention that these victims collaborated with the Soviets, then, given the extremist nature of these sources, it's hard to consider this text reliable; though this is an issue that should be dealt with at RS/N. An associated issue here is whether other passages in the source - specifically those relating to anti-semitism, etc. - are also presentations of particular views or the author's own.radek (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an extremist source as a primary source does not affect the guy using the source's reliability. Otherwise no historian would use Nazi party archives when discussing what Nazis were up to. Also, as has been told to you numerous times Patrilyak does not express any doubt about this particular fact. Frankly, this is kind of ridiculous - this is probably the main book about the OUN that is written by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences; statement from such a source, even if someone feels they are incorrect, are probably quite notable even for that reason alone. It seems to be clear censorship by Poles not wanting anything remotely unflattering written about Poles - comparable to this ridiculous episode concerning another inconvenient fact that such people fought against: [18].Faustian (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an extremist source as a primary source does not affect the guy using the source's reliability - actually that would depend on HOW the secondary source is using the extremist primary source. If it is being used to present what the view of these extremists was, then that's one thing, though that needs to be made clear in the corresponding article text. If the secondary source is using the extremist primary source to back up some claim, then that itself would make the secondary source non-reliable. That's part of the issue here.

Patrilyak does not express any doubt about this particular fact - I'm not so sure, per WP:Exceptional claims. He is contradicted in this by other sources and just by general knowledge of the relevant history here (for example the issue with Boy-Zelenski, Rancki and Bartel as I've indicated elsewhere). To me it seems like he's just presenting what the views of the OUN where, not necessarily accepting them. It's possible though that he is repeating the views of OUN but then see my statement above. Basically it's hard to tell from just the text that you quoted.

statement from such a source, even if someone feels they are incorrect, are probably quite notable even for that reason alone - yes, but that needs to be included in the text.

Finally, I have no idea why you're bringing the article on the Carmelite Church in Przemysl into this discussion. What does it have to do with me? I've never edited that article. I haven't even been aware of its existence until just now. What does it add to the discussion? This red herring's only purpose appears to be so that you can accuse people of "censorship". But there's no censorship here, just some serious questions about an exceptional claim made by a particular source.radek (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If this book is really the "main book about the OUN" (i am curious why you were unable to produce any peer reviews then) it does not yet mean it is a good source when it comes to the Nazi murder of Polish professors. The ridiculous claim that antisemitism was an almost state ideology in prewar Poland further proves the point.

As for Poles not wanting anything unflattering written about Poles that's simply nonsense you made up, Poles very often written critical stuff about Poles. The situation on wikipedia seems to be that one individual hiding behind the nick Faustian seems to produce a lot of anti-Polish claims usually based on 1 source while at the same time constantly trivilizing the crimes of the OUN/UPA. Your work here 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion is very telling: the huge crime of murdering the Jews is laconically described with a sentence or two but you devoted a lot of space to claims like that there were conflicts between Germans and Ukrainians, that the Germans were seen "to be terrible, powerful enemies of Ukraine" (yeah right), that the stay in Belarus where they were killing Jews and Belorussian partisans was actually good because they acquired experience to fight guerrilla against the Germans etc etc etc. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you comment on 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion on that article. My approach to wikipedia is very consistent: I write what reliable sources say. Period. If I come across information that shows that Ukrainian did something bad, I add it too. You claim that the fact that antisemitism was almost a state ideology of the Polish state prior to World War II is "ridiculous" seems to indicate that you are trying to hide bad things about Poland or that you don't know much about Polish history (in which case you are not qualified to judge those or other sources).Faustian (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"I write what reliable sources say. Period." No what are you doing is cherry-picking the sources which suit your particular point of view. You seems to be totally unable the grasp what the balance of sources on a particular topic is. The claim that anti-Semitism was almost a state ideology in the Polish state during the interwar period is simply embarrassing and it completely exposes your bias. I won't comment on the 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion article as I am not that interested in the topic, but everybody can form an opinion on your work by just looking at it. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I put the file by Faustian for discussion on WPRS Noticeboard

[19] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The one expert who commented stated that the source is reliable:

I don't know how well i'd rely on Google Translate to be correct all of the time. You're losing a lot in translation, i'm sure. But the base site where that work is hosted is the site for the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Because of that, I would tentatively say that it is a reliable source. Of course, that doesn't mean that a source isn't biased, just that it is reliable. You'd have to start a discussion on the talk page, perhaps an RfC, to get consensus on whether the work is biased or not. SilverserenC 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And:

Realistically, a biased source should not be used in an article. However, you claiming by yourself that the source is biased doesn't hold any water. You need to hold a Request for Comment on the talk page of the article to get other users involved, so that they can weigh in on whether the source is biased or not. The consensus that develops from that can then determine what should be done. I repeat from before, content-based discussion, other than determining the reliability of a source, should not be conducted on this board. SilverserenC 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So, the source seems to be deemed reliable.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, a biased source should not be used in an article. Also you quoted only one editor from there. Anyway there is enough opinion here to determine that the source isn't believed to be unbiased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That was othe only one editor not from herw who commented, wan't it? "there is enough opinion here to determine that the source isn't believed to be unbiased". Yeah - two people with long block histories for ethnic edit-warring (I'm not trying to be uncivil to you - it's a fact) and another guy who claims to be related to one of the victims which brings up obvious issues of nuetrality. These are the three seeking to overturn the opinion of 4 believed it belongs in the article. So, a minority with significant issues tries to get its way. I doubt that you three will be able to veto content or censor this article forever.Faustian (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are these 4? And I believe it's at least 4 on the other side as well. So it's not an attempt by a minority to veto a majority. It's a very real dispute. Anyways, these disputes are not (or at least should not be) settled by voting, by invoking user's block logs, or accusing others of non-neutrality and censorship, but by making reasonable arguments and showing how these relate to actual Wikipedia policies. radek (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of this article: [20]. I added the referenced information, it was removed by j. kunikowski, molobo and jacurek (3 people). It was restored by miacek, mutt lunker and galassi plus myself. So, 3 people removing it vs. 4 restoring it. Moreover another editor, Lvivske, didn't edit the article but on the talk pages seemed to support keeping that fact so maybe it would be 3 to 5. With respect to block logs, well the best interpretation of present behavior is past behavior, and 2 of the 3 "anti" editors have histories of ethnic-based edit warring. We're not talking 1 or 2 blocks but a lot of them. There's a reason for that and it is completely legitimate to consider others' motivation when evaluating an issue. Are they trying to improve the encyclopedia or are they motivated to defend some sort of Polish memory against what they see to be insults?

Nuetrality and censorship are wikipedia policies. We don't censor information because it's unpleasant or because it offends people. Looking at kunikowski's comments can you honestly state that he is nuetral? He claims to be related to one of the victims and is obviously emotionally involved with this topic. Does Jacurek offer any "reasonable arguments" to exclude this sourced information or does he just say "it needs to be removed because it TOTALLY innaccurate" or its "bizarre" and "unheard of" and such things. I didn't think the opinion of individual editors (much less those with such histories) about referenced information was grounds for that information's exclusion. If I and a few other people decide that something is "bizarre" can I go ahead and delete it also, even if it's referenced to a reliable source (it was deemed reliable by the one uninvolved person on the reliability noticeboard)?

So radek, what reasonable arguments could you add to remove or keep the referenced information?Faustian (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Galassi made a single edit to the article itself AFAICT and has not made any comments in this discussion. Miacek made some reversions but in this discussion also says Faustian, if it is a known fact that the killers selected those professors (out of a figure many times higher) to be murdered based on their pro-Soviet activities, it shouldn't be difficult to find additional sources that would help to convince others and provide additional details - a sentiment I agree with.

Reasonable arguments - it is an exceptional claim and hence requires exceptional sourcing. The only concrete examples of collaboration/cooperation with the Soviets for these individuals are Boy-Zelenski, who actually was arrested by accident and supposedly Bartel, who actually was offered the opportunity to collaborate but turned it down. It contradicts other sources which state that most of these people were apolitical. It is contradicted by the fact that some of these individuals WERE REPRESSED by the Soviets. It is contradicted by the fact that there were other professors who collaborated with the Soviets to a greater extent (like Banach) but who were not selected for execution and were left alone. The author of the source appears to qualify his sentence with a statement which appears to imply that "cooperation with the Soviets" was what OUN said, rather than an actual fact; but this is unclear due to problems with translation. That's like 8 or 9 what I think are "reasonable arguments" right there.radek (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's exceptional that the Nazis would want to execute those who were somehow linked to their enemies? You also ignore the fact that cooperation as the source states could have involved merely being in Soviet working groups (which would be like on faculty committees when the Soviet reorganized the universities) and that. Do you know if the executed professors were or were not on such committees? Is it exceptional or unreasonable to think they were? As for some of these individuals being REPRESSED. Well, and trhey survicved and were free, not executed. Is it unreasonable to suspect they might have made some sort of accomodation? Thousands were killed by the Soviets - they weren't. Indeed, from a nuetral perspective, it would seem to be quite logical that them making an accomdation would explain their survival under the Soviet system and why they were chosen while many others weren't for execution by the Nazis.

About exceptional sources. This statement was sourced specifically to a book about the OUN written by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences by a professor of history at Kiev's National University. This guy is one of the country's top experts on the OUN, and the statement concerns OUN activity. How is that not exceptional? Moreover, given the stature of the source, whatever it says would seem to meet the criteria for notability. This is apoint you have not yet commented on.

As for edits - Miasek and Galassi both restored the information we are discussing.

The author states "Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." Where do you see the ambiguity or the doubt that what he says isn't what happenend? The only thing that is described as the OUN's interpretation was that they were "servants of the Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism." Everything else was dscribed as fact and not questioned by Patrilyak. How much clearer can it be?Faustian (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what Radeksz wrote above? P.S. - PLEASE PRESENT RELIABLE SOURCES CONFIRMING THAT THE PROFESSORS WERE MURDERED BY THE NAZIS BECAUSE THEY WERE SOVIET COLLABORATORS. Faustian you can not introduce such an exceptional claim based on some publication you just happened to come across and nobody can even read here because of the translations problems. The claim you trying to introduce is SOOOOOOOOOO exceptional that it HAS TO BE BACKED by something much much better than the PDF article you keep referring to.--Jacurek (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. There is no prohibitionagainst using foreign-language sources on wikiepdia. You can shout all you want, the source has been judged reliable on the reliability noticeboard: [21], so that issue is already settled. There is nothing wrong with a source that has been placed on a pdf file; inded that's a good thingbecause it means people can read it.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No that issue is not settled at all, it is still very much open on the reliable sources noticeboard and there is a request to provide a citation of the work in question. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All topics are open there. One person decided thast it was reliable. Not a single person decided it wasn't reliable. I didn't catch the request for a citation but I've put it in.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The exceptional claim is not that the Nazis wanted to execute their political opponents (that includes a lot of people - though not the OUN). They did, but they also wanted to execute Jews and Poles simply because they were Jews and Poles. The exceptional claim is that these particular professors were Soviet cooperators/collaborators.radek (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional in Patryljak claim. --Galassi (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading Faustian's rants is almost surreal, the fact that he tries so desperately to misrepresent the situation pretty much shows there is an agenda in here. He puts a lot effort trying to present the situation as "Poles don't want the fact to be in the article", "Poles don't want anything negative to be written about Poles", "Poles here want to censor information" and similar. All that is completely and utterly false, the disagreement here is not whether that information/facts should be in the article but rather what are information/facts. Faustian's complete inability to produce a single other source to back the extraordinary claims in the pdf is revealing. The number of personal attacks which are increasing at an alarming pace are thus nothing but attempt to divert attention from that. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences released a book written by its resident OUN expert which states that the professors were singled out for one of various ways that they cooperated with the Soviet regime. This fact is in itself highly notable, and three editors - you, whose almost every comment includes some form of abuse - and two others with long block histories for edit warring on national topics, are the ones attempting to censor this information.Faustian (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of constantly repeating "fact", "information", "censor"? This will probably comes as a real shocker for you, but one does not prove that an extraordinary claim is a fact but repeating fact, fact, fact, information, fact, information. Please provide some sources for the extraordinary claims. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't think that the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences wrote a book that stated that the reeason the professors were murdered was because they had cooperated in some way with the Soviet authorities?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Cooperated in some way"? Wait, wasn't it "cooperated actively"? J.kunikowski (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cooperated actively in some way. Three ways were listed. You refused to answer the question. Do you deny the fact that the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences released a book that stated that the murdered professors were chosen for their fate due to their having cooperated actively with the Soviet regime? Did the Academy of Sciences publish a book that said that? Yes or no. It's a simple question, and choosing not to answer it is quite meaningful in itself.Faustian (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To be precise the translation you provided does not say "in some way", it seems you have now added this to try to tone down the claim a bit. Yes I believe there was a book released. I also believe that "facts" that go into a wikipedia article are usually easily proven by citing many sources. Btw are there any reviews of book anywhere? J.kunikowski (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Both independent commentators have stated that the source is reliable:

I.K. Patrylyak and the Institute of History of the Ukraine and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine are reliable and high quality sources unless demonstrated _specifically_ otherwise. As Patrylyak is published in an academic press, his work is reliable and scholarly. An attack on the scholarly nature of his work would need to be made on the credibility of Patrylyak, the quality of his specific book, or/and either the IHU or NASU in a scholarly setting by a historian of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. Such attacks would need to indicate that these elements of the source are not scholarly in nature and are untrue.

Secondly, why aren't editors using the much more accessible to the English reader, David R. Marples (2007) Heroes and villains: creating national history in contemporary Ukraine which deals with the role of the national myth, the OUN(B), and the quality of contemporary Ukraine historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Earlier:

I don't know how well i'd rely on Google Translate to be correct all of the time. You're losing a lot in translation, i'm sure. But the base site where that work is hosted is the site for the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Because of that, I would tentatively say that it is a reliable source. Of course, that doesn't mean that a source isn't biased, just that it is reliable. You'd have to start a discussion on the talk page, perhaps an RfC, to get consensus on whether the work is biased or not. SilverserenC 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And:

Realistically, a biased source should not be used in an article. However, you claiming by yourself that the source is biased doesn't hold any water. You need to hold a Request for Comment on the talk page of the article to get other users involved, so that they can weigh in on whether the source is biased or not. The consensus that develops from that can then determine what should be done. I repeat from before, content-based discussion, other than determining the reliability of a source, should not be conducted on this board. SilverserenC 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No indepednet reviewer has said that it isn't.

I am restoring the information. Deletion of this information will result in going through the proper channels.Faustian (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources Faustian. This source is hardly neutral and thus can't be seen as extraordinary one. Also you still haven't explained the exact nature of the claim in this source, if it is based on Nazi collaborationist statements and why you aren't able to find this information anywhere else. Since editor above mentions quality of Ukrainian histography on OUN perhaps this needs to be added as well hmm?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question to Faustian regarding his use of sources

I couldn't help to notice that Faustian is preparing a statement regarding professors background hereBut the comments, written by a "Michael Mills", do bring up interesting points to consider: If Faustian is basing his claims on them its no wonder they go against established history: The person mention by Faustian helped David Irving in his trialsDuring his trial, Irving was assisted in preparing information for his cross examination by Australian public servant Michael Mills

Also note Clarke, Simone. "Bureaucrat by Day, Revisionist Researcher by Night: Michael Mills and the Banality of Denial." Generation: A Journal of Australian Jewish Life, Thought and Community 8 (May 2000): 12-16.

This is the same person if anybody is wondering.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought in comments by this guy and now you're trying to turn this into a discuission of Michael Mills? I didn't quote Mills in this article, nor would I. On some forum Mills brought up the point about the fact that those professors didn't leave , were not deported nor killed by the Soviets could suggest that they came to some sort of accomodation with the authorities. you didn't addres that point. And please don't repost things from my sandbox on this article (even though I posted parts of this already). Shouldn't you not be snooping into people's sandboxes? Faustian (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the recently added section about collaboration

Sandstein advised me to try to discuss matters on the talk page trying to establish a consensus. I think we should try that. So I have the following questions and I hope Faustian will be able to shed some light on this issues:

1) What are the credentials of the author of the book? There is no wikipedia page about him, establishing his bibliography would be helpful.

2) What sources does he use for the claims added by Faustian? Particularly, are there any photos of the alleged talks to form a collaborationist government, or written records of the talks in Soviet archives, or a testimony of the Polish or Soviet participants in these talk?

3) Why are there no other sources about these high level talks?

4) After occupying the Eastern part of Poland in 1939, Stalin annexed the territories to the Soviet Union. Why would Stalin want to form a pro-Soviet Polish government? To govern what exactly?

5) Why were a large number of close relatives of the professors murdered as well (wives, sons, daughters) as well as other personal who did not high enough positions (such as for example nurses etc.) J.kunikowski (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement does not use the term collaboration, but cooperation. I suggest you read what is written, much more carefully. The source is published by Kiev University, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. THe first part of the book cited is here as a pdf: [22]. Here is proof that the author, Ivan Kazimirovich Patrilyak (suggesting partial Polish descent?) is a professor of history at Kiev University: [23]. Faustian (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian please provide other scholarly sources for this bizarre and never heard of before claim. Extraordinary claims need many different sources not just one PDF. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the claim bizarre? Because you think it is? Here is a quote from the wikipedia article of one of the victims, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński. "After the outbreak of World War II, Boy-Żeleński moved to Soviet-occupied Lwów, where he stayed with his wife's brother-in-law. In Lviv, Boy joined the Soviet-led University as the head of the Department of French Literature. Criticized by many for his public and frequent collaboration with the Soviet occupation forces, he maintained contacts with many prominent professors and artists, who found themselves in the city after the Polish Defensive War. He also took part in creating the Communist propaganda newspaper Czerwony Sztandar (Red Banner) and became one of the prominent members of the Society of Polish Writers." Are these also bizarre claims?Faustian (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More is here, on the wikipedia article: [24]. "The Soviets sought to recruit Polish left-wing intellectuals who were willing to cooperate.[69][74][75][76] Soon after the Soviet invasion, the Writers' Association of Soviet Ukraine created a local chapter in Lwów; there was a Polish-language theater and radio station.[74] Polish cultural activities in Minsk and Wilno were less organized.[74][76] These activities were strictly controlled by the Soviet authorities, which saw to it that these activities portrayed the new Soviet regime in a positive light and vilified the former Polish government.[74]

he Soviet propaganda-motivated support for Polish-language cultural activities, however, clashed with the official policy of Russification. The Soviets at first intended to phase out the Polish language and so banned Polish from schools,[67] street signs,[77] and other aspects of life. This policy was, however, reversed at times—first before the elections in October 1939;[77] and later, after the German conquest of France. By the late spring of 1940, Stalin, anticipating possible future conflict with the Third Reich, decided that the Poles might yet be useful to him[citation needed]. In the autumn of 1940, the Poles of Lwów observed the 85th anniversary of Adam Mickiewicz's death.[78] Soon, however, Stalin decided to re-implement the Russification policies.[75] He reversed his decision again, however, when a need arose for Polish-language pro-Soviet propaganda following the German invasion of the Soviet Union; as a result Stalin permitted the creation of Polish forces in the East and later decided to create a communist People's Republic of Poland.[74][75]"

Many Polish writers collaborated with the Soviets, writing anti-Polish,[76][unreliable source?] pro-Soviet propaganda.[74][75][76] They included Jerzy Borejsza, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński, Kazimierz Brandys, Janina Broniewska, Jan Brzoza, Teodor Bujnicki, Leon Chwistek, Zuzanna Ginczanka, Halina Górska, Mieczysław Jastrun, Stefan Jędrychowski, Stanisław Jerzy Lec, Tadeusz Łopalewski, Juliusz Kleiner, Jan Kott, Jalu Kurek, Karol Kuryluk, Leopold Lewin, Anatol Mikułko, Jerzy Pański, Leon Pasternak, Julian Przyboś, Jerzy Putrament, Jerzy Rawicz, Adolf Rudnicki, Włodzimierz Słobodnik, Włodzimierz Sokorski, Elżbieta Szemplińska, Anatol Stern, Julian Stryjkowski, Lucjan Szenwald, Leopold Tyrmand, Wanda Wasilewska, Stanisław Wasilewski, Adam Ważyk, Aleksander Weintraub and Bruno Winawer.[74][75][76]" Faustian (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian could you please restrain from posting so much text about not directly related issues? Thanks. Now regarding your previous comment ok point taken it's "cooperation" not collaboration (although frankly i don't much of a difference). Is there a list of bibliography by that author somewhere? Can you translate the pdf you link above and what are the sources for the Polish-Soviet talks? J.kunikowski (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I only posted all that to show that the idea of Polish intellectuals cooperating with the Soviets was not some wierd unheard-of event that you claimed it was.Faustian (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide other reliable sources that confirm that the professors executed in the "Lvov massacre" were specifically chosen by the Nazis because of their alleged cooperation's with the Soviet occupying forces. Since you brought this claim forward, you need to back it up with satisfactory sources. So far none of the scholarly work on the subject I'm familiar with confirms your claim. Also, please do not remove the "dispute tag" until this dispute is over.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So one source is not enough if you do not like it? Also, your tag is not about dispute it is about nuetrality. How is that information not nuetral? A Ukrainian historian claimed that. He really did claim that. There is a ref and even a link proving that he claimed it. The fact that he claimed it is true and nuetral. The source is reliable - info about the author and his academic background have been provided. As for corroborating evidence, I don't know if this is a reliable source but one of the victims, who was released, stated that his interrogator accused him of working with the Bolsheviks: [25] "I found myself in a room where there were two officers, a younger one who arrested me and another one of a higher rank, a large, portly man. He immediately shouted at me: "You dog, you are a German and have betrayed your German country. You served the Bolsheviks! Why didn't you, when it was possible, depart with all the other Germans to the West? " I began to explain, at first quietly and then louder, as the officer raised his voice, that although I was of German descent I considered myself a Pole. Secondly, even had I intended to go West, the Soviet authorities would not have permitted it because of my high social position as University Professor and well-known clinician - they considered me indispensable. I was then asked to explain the meaning of the visiting cards of British consuls found in my possession. I replied that I was married to a titled English lady and we were often visited by British consuls. He grew quieter, and apparently impressed he said: "I'll have to speak to my boss, we shall see what can yet be done for you" and hurriedly left the room." Faustian (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One source would be O.K. if the claim was not extraordinary. By inserting this claim into the article you have turned the victims of the massacre into anti-Polish collaborators who were punished for doing that by the Nazis and their Ukrainian cooperators. This claims changes the whole prospective of the events and it is VERY VERY serious allegation therefore you need to back it up with some better sources. One PDF article in Ukrainian language in far less from being satisfactory. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The "one pdf article in Ukrainian language" (is something wrong with articles converted to pdf and placed online?) was written by a professor at Kiev's National University and published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He is a specialist on this subject. Hereis the beginning of the book cited: [[26]. The article does not describe these people as collaborators, but as people who were seen by those who reported on them as workng for the Soviet system in various roles. In many of these roles they are no more collabortors than is anyone who worked in Communist Poland and who belonged to trade organizations, etc, during communist times. As I wrote earlier, it would be good to make clear that these victims were not necessarily traitors or communists. I object, however, to simply erasing information from reliable sources just because someone doesn't like it, or mislabeling the information as "not nuetral" because someone doesn't like it.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"He is a specialist on the subject" Which subject is that exactly? From what I can see the book is not about the Nazis and their crimes but rather the OUN which wasn't involved in the massacre. Secondly you still haven't stated what is the source for the claim that these professors were talks with Stalin(!) to form a pro-Soviet Polish government. Also you still haven't explain why would Stalin, after annexing the Eastern part of Poland to Soviet Union, wanted to form a Polish government and with members of Polish intelligentsia, which were usually seen as class enemies, to boot. This is such a bizarre claim that it needs to be properly addressed, sourced and explained. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"As I wrote earlier, it would be good to make clear that these victims were not necessarily traitors or communists." What kind of absurd statement is that? They were NOT traitors or communists. Would you like somebody writes about you: "Faustian is not necessary a thief". J.kunikowski (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Becaause one of the victims was openly accused of being a traitor or communist. Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński: "After the outbreak of World War II, Boy-Żeleński moved to Soviet-occupied Lwów, where he stayed with his wife's brother-in-law. In Lviv, Boy joined the Soviet-led University as the head of the Department of French Literature. Criticized by many for his public and frequent collaboration with the Soviet occupation forces, he maintained contacts with many prominent professors and artists, who found themselves in the city after the Polish Defensive War. He also took part in creating the Communist propaganda newspaper Czerwony Sztandar (Red Banner) and became one of the prominent members of the Society of Polish Writers."

Also, If you read the article you will see that not every victim was said to have flown to Moscow to meet with Stalin or to participate in the formation of a pro-soviet Polish government. This was one of three criteria for being placed on the list of those to be killed, the three criteria being "members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government." Haven't you read the article?Faustian (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that the Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński article has a grand total of zero sources. Please stop copying tons of text from other wiki articles and provide sources. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if this heavy claim that the professors were chosen for the execution because they were Soviet collaborators is not backed by other scholarly sources it has to be removed. You can not "dig out" some bizarre speculation of one guy and present that as a fact. Please take your time Faustian and research other scholarly material on the subject.--Jacurek (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line seems to be that you are saying that you want to remove info if you don't like it, against wikipedia rules which do not state that more than one clearly reliable source is necessary for information.Faustian (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This claim that the professors were murdered because they were Soviet collaborators is new to anyone familiar with the subject. Again, you need to provide VERY good sources for this revolutionary claim in order to be included in this article. To my knowledge, serious sources backing up your claim do not exist. I can’t find anything that would confirm that. I can’t read the PDF material you provided because it is not in English or in latin alphabet. PLEASE provide scholarly sources that CLEARLY state that THE PROFESSORS WERE CHOSEN FOR THE EXECUTION BECAUSE THEY WERE SOVIET COLLABORATORS, otherwise this claim has to be removed. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot read it, cut and paste the material into "googletranslate". The result is somewhat clumsy but you can still understand generally what is said. Are you reading what the article and what I say here? Nobody is calling them collaborators. So why do you insist that this is what is claimed? I agree that the word "collaborators" should not be used, and it isn't. Instead of referring to the victims as collaborators, the source states they were chosen because they cooperated with the new Soviet regime in one of various possible ways.Faustian (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing here: it's true that Boy-Zelenski cooperated or collaborated with the Soviets. It's true that he was among those killed in this massacre. But, as it turns out he wasn't actually one of the people on the list prepared (supposedly by OUN affiliated students) for execution; he was arrested by chance while visiting somebody else. So he's not really a good example of "they were executed because they cooperated with the Soviets" thesis. Additionally, at least a couple of those executed had previously been imprisoned by NKVD and barely escaped with their lives when the Soviets left the city. Rencki was one. So it's more or less impossible to say that these people where arrested and executed because of prior collaboration with Soviets, although some of them may have done so. If you look through some of the names, the only commonalities that jump out at you is that 1) lots of them were doctors or somehow affiliated with the schools of medicine, and 2) many - but not all - of them had taken an active part in the fighting for Lwow in 1918, which is probably the main reason they were targeted.radek (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! Can you find a ref for that so we can out it in, in addition to the information already contained in the section? It's important to note that the article states that they were alleged to have cooperated with the Soviets based on what the Ukrainian students said. It could very well be that the students based their allegations on the fact that those guys fought against Ukrainians in 1918, that those professors were negative towards Ukrainian students or supported anti-Ukrainian policies (I remember reading that somewhere, but couldn't find the references so I didn't put it into the article). It seems to make intuitive sense that their way of getting back at those professors was to in some cases falsely, in some cases not, identify them to the Germans as people cooperating with the Soviets. Those last sentences are my specualtion. On the other hand, there does not seem to be anything odd about those people cooperating with the Soviets in the way they are accused of doing. Cooperation doesn't only mean working for the NKVD. It could also mean, for example, being a delegate (such as a member of a faculty senate) with a Soviet organization (such as the Soviet-reorganized University). There does not seem anything strange about people living their lives under the Soviet government and engaging in that sort of cooperation.Faustian (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Boy-Zelenski was arrested by accident is in the Zygmunt Albert source already used in the article. The source also gives the information that the standing order to the arrest squads was to take in everyone on the proscribed list and any males over the age of 18 that were found within their company. BZ was visiting Jan Grek, who apparently was on the list, and was picked up as a result.

The fact about Rencki being formerly imprisoned by NKVD was off the top of my head but it shouldn't be hard to find a source to verify it.

The thing about a lot of these people being associated with the medical professions and having fought in 1918 was just some quick original research on my part, based on a quick look through the biographies of many of them on Polish Wiki. I actually don't know why it appears doctors and such were targeted so disproportionally and it seems like there should be some reason for it. Digging around in the sources may give an answer.

Falsely or "semi-falsely" denouncing people to the Nazis seems like a plausible explanation; it's generally how things work under totalitarian regimes.

The thing about the delegation and the supposed Polish Soviet Republic appears to refer to Kazimierz Bartel, the former Polish PM, who was SUMMONED to Moscow by Stalin and offered a post along those lines. But he refused.

Quite a number of other professors who "cooperated" with the Soviets by continuing to work at the universities were NOT arrested or executed. You bring up being a member of faculty senate under Soviets - the prime example here would of course be Stefan Banach, who was not arrested and executed (he survived the war by being a feeder of lice but that wasn't until later). So why Bartel or others but not Banach?radek (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What you write makes sense. It seems logical that the Nazis asked students (and the students who would cooperate with them would be OUN members) who was working with the Soviets and the students gave them the names of those people who not only cooperated with the Soviets but who were also seen as enemies by the nationalists, for whatever reason, while leaving others alone. Although Bartel refused to join Stalin, his trip to Moscow would undoubtedly have led to sufficient suspicion to have been placed on the hit-list. Now if all that can be sourced...Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Boy-Zelenski thing can be sourced with Albert.

Albert also says "Należy wątpić w spotkanie Bartla ze Stalinem, ale istotnie wyjeżdżał on do Moskwy, jak oświadczyła mi Bartlowa, w sprawie tłumaczenia na język rosyjski dzieła Perspektywa malarska. Oczywiście, że mógł dziwić wyjazd w takiej sprawie aż do Moskwy, skoro można było ją załatwić na miejscu we Lwowie" Translation: "It is doubtful if Bartel actually met Stalin although he did indeed travel to Moscow. According to Bartel's wife this was in regard to a translation of (his) book "Painter's perspective" into Russian. It's possible though that such a trip was viewed with suspicion because an issue like that could have been settled in Lwow".

The webpage of the Bartel foundation states: "W 1940 został wraz z kilkoma innymi politykami i profesorami wezwany do Moskwy, gdzie zaproponowano mu miejsce w Radzie Najwyższej ZSRR. Bartel propozycję tę odrzucił. " Translation: In 1940 (Bartel) along with several other (Polish) politicians and professors was summoned to Moscow where he was offered a position in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Bartel rejected the offer".

This web page [27] of the Bulletin of the Silesian Polytechnic states that the Nazis also offered Bartel some kind of collaborationist political position, and killed him only after he refused that too. I'll try to find something more on Rencki later.radek (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing their work at the University is not "actively cooperating with the Soviets". If the Nazis + OUN justified the murders that way then wikipedia has to make it clear these were bogus accusations made by butchers and killers. If you look at the list of murdered people there are 3 wives, 9 sons and 1 grandson of professors among the murdered which further dismantles the cooperation theories. J.kunikowski (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose eveyone has their own interpretation of what it means to cooperate with the Soviets. You are right about the family members - the murderers also killed the loved ones of those who were accused of cooperating with the Soviet authorities during Soviet rule.Faustian (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah everyone have their own interpretation, the question is why should wikipedia go with the interpretation of the killers and murderers. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is not an interpretion of a killer or murderer to cite a source that states that the victims were alleged to have cooperated with the Soviet regime. If the source stated they definitely were collaboratos and Bolsheviks or something like that then yes, that would be wrong. But it doesn't state that at all. Faustian (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian would you please make up your mind? Now you claim that the source says they were "alleged to have cooperated" while yesterday you translated the source as follows:

"Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction."

Now according to your above translation of the source, the source claims that they have actively worked with the Soviets, visited Stalin(!), and even went so far as conducting talks to create a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London.

Faustian stop playing games and tell us does the source actually say. Does the source says the professors were alleged to cooperate with the Soviets by the Nazis (or OUN) or does the sources claims these things as facts which happened. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to read the word "or."Faustian (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your answer!? So I will ask you again: does the source say that they were alleged to cooperate as you claim today or does the source present these things as facts as you claimed yesterday? J.kunikowski (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The allegation, or interpretation, was that they supported "Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism" in the nationalist jargon. But the fact, according to the source, is that they cooperated with the Soviet regime in various ways. The latter is not an allegation but a fact. I tried to word it in the article to compromise with you guys but that was incorrect. Thanks for helping to clarify it.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So you making things up was done to compromise with us. okay right. Now, could you please tell us what evidence does the source provide for these "facts"? J.kunikowski (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Try to be civil. Yes, I was motivated enough to try to work in a friendly spirit of compromise that I made a mistake - I accept that and have now changed it. You have already been warned about your incivility. As for your second sentence - I don't have to judge or look for the source's evidence for those facts. In fact that sort of thing is discouraged on wikipedia. Even if I did look into the source's sources, per wikipedia policy against original research, my search would have no place on wikipedia. The fact that the source states that is all that the victims, in various ways cooperated with the Soviet authorities, is necessary for its inclusion in the article. Do you understand?Faustian (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do no make bogus accusations of incivility. Thank you. You provided opposing interpretation of the source which is your fault (the "i was trying to compromise" claim is funny). I have not asked you to judge the source's evidence, I simply asked you what evidence does the source present for these as you call them "facts". A claim based on no evidence is not a fact it is simply a claim. As for the inclusion in the article, I see you have still not familiarized yourself with the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy (note the plural). I suggest you stop violating that policy or propose a change to it. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion about the facts described by Patrilyak and your interesting interpretation of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." You first need to prove that this claim is "exceptional," which doesn't seem to be the case. I suppose one can argue that since this is one claim, it requires one source. Why don't we file an RFC to see what people who aren't Poles think? The only non-Pole who came here agreed that the information belongs in the article. Perhaps we should get more opinions to settle this dispute?Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Which "facts" described by Patrilyak are you talking about? I have seen no description whatsoever, if I have missed it please do no hesitate to present it. The professors entering the talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the legitimate Polish government is not exceptional claim? That's a normal claim for you? I mean seriously man. As for the editors here, I am opposed to any talks about the nationality, for me there are no Poles, Ukrainians, Americans or Chinese. There are only good editors and less good editors. I am not sure what is a RFC and I have no idea how to do that but if you want to file it no problem from my part. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the translation of Patrilyak's words:"Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in opposition to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be interepreted by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." I will file the RFC when I have time.Faustian (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for just copying the text once again, it is really helpful. J.kunikowski (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• But it’s clear to see that the origin of claims about mythical “pro-soviet Polish government in 1940” originated from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned here [28] as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member – so again – scholar text with examples of the Banderas OUN accusations was simply ‎given out of context of the scholar conclusions – given at page 363-364 (you can copy-paste sentence-by sentence to google translate to comprehend general idea - Actually google translate suggest a mess of words [29]

HTML version of text [30]). Thank you P.S. Story is similar to Stella Krentzbach affairs [31] Jo0doe (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice example of using original research to argue against a reliable secondary source's conclusion.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Faustian, this claim that proffesors were Soviet collaborators and that was the reason they were murdered has to be removed because is TOTALY inaccurate.--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no claim that the professors were "Soviet collaborators." If there was, then it should be removed. But there isn't, so no removal necessary. Would it make you happy to add the words "Soviet collaborators", and then remove them? I was kidding, but how many times do you need to read that there are no such words in the article?Faustian (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point Faustian…anyway..by inserting this claim that their murder was a punishment for the alleged collaboration with the Soviets is very inaccurate and can't be here because it falsifies history. These professors were murdered not because they were Soviet collaborators but because of the Nazi Germany's aim to eliminate Polish intelligentsia.--Jacurek (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be obvious that Polish-Soviet collaborating intelligentsia would be of a more pressing concern to Germans than those who didn't collaborate with Germany's largest enemy? Let's use some common sense here--Львівське (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious. Most of the murdered professors did not engage in any political activity whatsoever. Please back this revisionist claim that the reason for the murder was collaboration with the Soviets. AGAIN: To my knowledge there are NO scholarly work that confirm that claim. ONE questionable source few people can read because is in Cyrillic is not satisfactory for this exceptional claim. As it was said many times before: exceptional claims require exceptional sources so far no sources were provided.--Jacurek (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no collaboration mentioned. Jeez. Being murdered as a result of being identified as someone cooperating with the Soviet authorities and being murdered as part of a generally policy of extermination of the Polish intelligentsia are not mutually exclusive. Cooperation with Soviet rule could be an explanation why these particular academics were killed while others weren't. BTW, despite all this arguing against a clearly referenced fact based on an obviously reliable source, why hasn't anyone added detailed information about the German policy towards the Polish intelligentsia here? It would be quite appropriate for the background section.Faustian (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the dishonest tactic of constantly trying to summarize the debate as you defending a "fact" while people who disagree with you are arguing against a "fact". J.kunikowski (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Stalin told the German ambassador Friedrich von der Schulenberg, that there was no place for an 'independent residual Poland' as a buffer state" – from

[32] [33] The Rise and Fall of the Third Reichpage 565

Source Z archiwów sowieckich, t. 1: Polscy jeńcy w ZSRR 1939-1941, oprac. i tłum. W. Materski, Warszawa 1992; - also does not suggest any Pro-Soviet Poland Government –

Russian sources http://militera.lib.ru/docs/da/dvp/23(1)/index.html (page 597) – noted about Sikorski London Government “more reasonable” attitude to USSR - Польша «раз и навсегда отбрасывает» «политику Пилсудского и Бека и ставит своей задачей установить дружеские отношения с СССР » Beria suggestion to create a Poland division (Berling) in NOvember 1940 also was postponed personally by Stalin – in afraid to harm Nazi-Soviet relations [34] – So it’s clear example of the OUN(b) accusation given at scholar text - but not a fact as suggested. Also recent source p.59 [35] – suggest similar to Patrilyak pp 363-4 conclusion about Bandera’s OUN participation. Ukrainian sources (- published Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) sources also silent about "Pro-Soviet Poland Government in 1940-41”. Jo0doe (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this claim that the professors where murdered because of the alleged collaboration with the Soviets is not backed by any scholarly works and it is historically inaccurate. Please feel free to remove that information.Thanks--64.180.43.61 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To Jo0doe: thanks for providing the sources. It is clear that the Nazi murder of professors simply followed classical Nazi policy of elimination of the Slavic intelligentsia.

To user above: I would remove it however I don't know what are the rules for removal on wikipedia, when I tried to remove it before I was told there is need for "consensus" for this. (I don't understand why can somebody add suspect information without consensus but for removal I need consensus??). J.kunikowski (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. We have a couple of Poles agreeing to that. The reference is to a scholarly work. Sorry if certain facts upset you, but not liking something is not a criterion for its exclusion.Faustian (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop addressing users as "couple of Poles". I don't address you by your nationality. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian asked me to read the source [36] and evaluate it. Unfortunately I am not good in reading long Ukrainian texts so I have only skimmed it. The book is a monograph written by a Kandidat of Science Ivan Patrilyak [37] who seems to be a recognized Ukrainian historian. The book is reviewed by Kiev University, one of the reviewers is Stanislav Kulchytsky one of the most prominent historians of Ukraine during Stalin time. The book is devoted to history of OUN. The author seems to have a very positive point of view about OUN (that is a mainstream view in modern Ukraine anyway). I would not be surprised if the book whitewashes the history now and then. It looks like the views expressed by the book are notable in Ukraine (or even mainstream), we probably should not dismiss them. On the other hand since no other sources support the notion that Polish professors were persecuted for collaboration with Soviets (nor any specific of their collaboration is given) I am uncomfortable of stating this as a fact. I propose to state them as an opinion and attribute it to the source, like According to modern Ukrainian historian Ivan Patrilyak Polish professors were executed for their collaboration with the Soviet authorities, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really aprpeciate your taking the time to look into this and I agree with what you say. I believe that how it is currently worded basically matches your recommendation: "According to a Ukrainian historian, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime in some way between 1940-1941." One thing: there is a scrap of outside evidence supporting this. One of the people who were interrgoated but who was not executed said that the interogator explictly accused him of being a traitor who worked for the Bolsheviks. See here: [38]Faustian (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis regularly accused the interrogated people of being Bolsheviks spies and similar nonsense. Nazi interrogators are not a reliable source, thanks God. J.kunikowski (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What would be the best way to phrase it then? I think that's what a lot of the disagreement has revolved around. "According to Patrilyak the OUN prepared a list of Poles which it believed to have been Soviet collaborators which it passed on to the Nazis"? Or "According to Patrilyak the OUN prepared a list of Poles which it alleged to have been Soviet collaborators which it passed on to the Nazis"? Or "According to Patrilyak the OUN prepared a list of Poles who were Soviet collaborators, just to get them executed (as I've indicated above, the criteria seems to have been whether or not a particular professor took part in Polish-Ukrainian fighting in 1918, not their political ideology). I can even see how they made that list and sort of believed that some of the people on it really were "Soviet collaborators". I can't see however, how the fact that they made this list of supposed "Soviet collaborators" actually establishes that they were in fact "Soviet collaborators" - which is the "fact" that is under dispute here. Per discussion above Rancki and Bartel among others clearly weren't. I'm still not so sure that Patrilyak states that they were "Soviet collaborators" - rather he is merely stating the view of the OUN in preparing those lists. The proper phrasing, per your suggestion above, should be something like According to modern Ukrainian historian Ivan Patrilyak the OUN prepared a list of Polish professors whom they alleged were guilty of collaboration with the Soviets etc.. And that should be followed by a full honest discussion of who was and who wasn't affiliated with the Soviets (ie. Boy-Zelenski was, but was not on the list. Rancki was actually repressed by the Soviets. Bartel was courted by the Soviets but refused even though he was afraid of his own life. Etc.) Part of the problem here is trying to phrase it in simple all encompassing terms - they were, or they weren't - which necessarily leads to POV statements unsupported by either facts or sources.radek (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The current phrase most accurately summarizes what Patrilyak says. I think what you wrote below (that 25 were on the list, others were "in the wrong place at the wrong time") obviously deserves to go in the article, too, provided it is sourced. Patrilyak just says that those on the list were actively cooperating, not that their sons, passers and others executed who were not on the list were also cooperating.Faustian (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ay, to make it more explicit, and please keep in mind that this is an example meant to illustrate a point, including the phrase as Faustian wants it would imply that for example Bartel, was a "Soviet collaborator" (never mind the fact that some of those executed were persecuted by the Soviets) simply because he was OFFERED a chance at collaboration (which he refused). This is more or less the same as including "he was a Nazi collaborator" in the article on Stepan Bandera, because after all, Bandera sort of, maybe, could have, collaborated with the Nazis and was definitely offered the chance (it wasn't on his terms so he refused - but that's not different from Bartel is it?). And I'm sure there is a source out there which says that from the POV of Poles or Russian partisans Bandera was such. And then you can get into the nitty gritty of it and find some OUN leaders who actually DID take the offer. There were 45 people killed in this massacre. 25 or so of them were originally placed on the death list and the other 20 were more or less incidental, since the Nazi didn't really give a much of fuck when it came to killing Slavs, so they just killed some that were passing by. It is crazy though to say that all 25 of these people were Soviet "collaborators" or, weaselly, "cooperators". The stated reason for why they were murdered may very well have been this - and this is what I think Patrilyak says. But no more. It is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of who these people were that the charge of "Soviet collaboration" was at best nothing more than an excuse. If you gonna slap this "they got murdered because they were Soviet cooperators" thing in there then you should follow it up with an honest discussion of how some of them went straight from NKVD prisons to Gestapo execution sites. And put "Nazi collaborator" into the Stepan Bandra article since it has about the same meroit. It's ridiculous to make this kind of blanket statement about this diverse group of individuals. I'm sure some of them had leftist sympathies - the thing they had in come though was that they represented the Polish intellectual academic elite of the time. That's why they were killed. No more no less.radek (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of "cooperation" as being a weasel word for "collaboration" and I would never write that those who were executed were "collaborators;" the source certainly did not say they were. Cooperation is not necessarily collaboration. If the Soviets reorganized the university and aksed profesors to take administrative positions within their reorganized school, this is active cooperation with the new Soviet regime. Would that make the new professor a "collaborator?" I wouldn't use that pejorative term in that case. Picking those 25 out of the 160 for their cooperation with the Soviets may have been nothing more than an excuse but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. With respect to Stepan Bandera, this is beyond the scope of this article's talk page but I will briefly say that there is no doubt by anyone legitimate that he actively cooperated with the Nazis for a time, for his own purposes. Whether this makes him a collaborator is more controversial.Faustian (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The professors simply continued to do their academic work, not just those 25 murdered, but all of them. That does not mean they were "actively cooperating with the Soviets". The only body with the authority to make such calls was the Polish legitimate government anyway, and they never detected any "active cooperation". J.kunikowski (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise the book presents a very positive point of view about the OUN. The user who reviewed the book said he wouldn't be surprised if the book whitewashes the history now and then. Why again should we use this book as a source for information for the massacred Polish professors? J.kunikowski (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing "now and thenn" isn't the same thing as making up facts and lying. The indepeedent reviewer also suggested wording it pretty much the exact same way it is already worded. In his owrds, "I propose to state them as an opinion and attribute it to the source, like According to modern Ukrainian historian Ivan Patrilyak Polish professors were executed for their collaboration with the Soviet authorities, etc. Faustian (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing "now and thenn" isn't the same thing as making up facts and lying. I am left speechless. J.kunikowski (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)