Talk:Slava Ukraini/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pronunciation

It would be good if this article could include an IPA pronunciation guide and an audio file of someone saying "Слава Україні", so readers can learn how it is pronounced in Ukrainian. Thanks if you're able to help. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Sir Beluga for adding this. No thanks to Buckshot06 for removing my request without justification. Booo! Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Slava Ukraini, without the exclamation point. The consistency argument, compared with other national mottos, was persuasive. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Glory to Ukraine → Slava Ukraini! – As a result of the invasion, the salute has, naturally, seen a vast uptick of use from non-Ukrainians wishing to express solidarity, to such a point where nearly all non-Ukrainian use dates from the past few weeks. In particular, even amongst English speakers, the Ukrainian form seems to be much more used than the translated form, indicating that — for the purposes of WP:UE — this is the common name for the salute. (Google News: Slava Ukraini vs Glory to Ukraine, which may elucidate) Sceptre (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google news shows 251 results for "Slava Ukraini" compared to 234 for "Glory to Ukraine", while Google Scholar shows 71 for "Slava Ukraini" compared to 375 for "Glory to Ukraine". I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to establish Slava Ukraini as the WP:COMMONNAME, and the English is preferable per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:UE, and possibly WP:NATURAL. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment  I am undecided. The phrase “glory to Ukraine” does appear to get more hits, but a lot of the sources aren’t necessarily using the name to refer to the motto, but are translating a direct quotation, sometimes glossing the use of the Ukrainian phrase, or just saying, e.g., that Oleg Antonov “brought glory to Ukraine.” Any fair comparison of the translation to the use of the Ukrainian ought to try to distinguish these different uses, and should also consider the use of the alternate spelling slava Ukrayini. Some of the WP:CRITERIA, especially precision, might support the move. —Michael Z. 19:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do other articles about imperative phrases include an exclamation mark in the title? I get the impression that it is used as a grammatical signifier in Ukrainian, but in English it’s usually only an indicator of exclamation or emphasis in quoted or paraphrased speech. —Michael Z. 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The national salute itself is the key here — the enunciation of the words themselves, not their English translation. The various prominent English speakers who have said the salute, actually said it as "Slava Ukraini" — they did not say the words, "Glory to Ukraine". A glance at Category:National mottos confirms that a majority of those main title headers are the Latin-alphabet or transliterated versions of the native forms, rather than their English-language translations. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support without exclamation mark. No one says "Glory to Ukraine" in English, they say "Slava Ukraini". Sources that just mention the translation do not count towards WP:COMMONAME. Desertambition (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked the first ten results for "Glory to Ukraine". Eight of them used the term by itself; only two did in the context of "Slava Ukraini". None of the first ten Google Scholar results appeared to use the term in the context of "Slava Ukraini". BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment do we have any evidence that an exclamation mark is commonly written along the phrase in sources? Super Ψ Dro 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe at this stage there is enough to show what the common term is. --Spekkios (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Please expand, you have provided no evidence. Desertambition (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  The very first comment provides that. --Spekkios (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support We should use the native names of national mottos. An English translation doesn't count as WP:COMMONNAME.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• No comment on the move itself but I doubt it would be appropriate for the title to include an exclamation mark. Ruбlov (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support but without the exclamation mark, per Roman. ansh.666 02:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support but without the exclamation mark, per Roman and ansh. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Im not in favor of any but consider recognizability among audience indicated by google trends [1] average: slava ukraini - 36, glory to ukraine - 6 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support (without exclamation) as the English translation doesn't be the Common Name.--Arorae (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have relisted discussion so that the use of the explanation mark can be determined. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I have noticed this too. Schierbecker (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support (but without exclamation mark) on grounds that the slogan is being used extensively in English in untranslated form. Examples are its documented use by non-Ukrainian politicians in speeches expressing solidarity with Ukraine, which we mention in the article, graffiti appearing outside of Ukraine etc. Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Perception and legality in Poland

I am pretty sure the slogan is not forbidden in Poland — this claim is not directly supported by sources cited and there is no provision on the slogan in regulations mentioned in the cited openDemocracy article. Whether it is "seen to be extremely offensive" and "widely condemned" is much trickier — neither source supports these claims, but I believe a decent case can be made that the slogan is perceived very negatively by at least some Poles. Andrzej.mendel (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [History - 21st century]

The source for the statement "It is also commonly used in greeting to Ukraine from the world leaders." (source #8) seems very dubious. The title of the video does not seem to have anything to do with either the statement or the content of the video. The video itself is a number of clips of people (including world leaders but not exclusively) saying the phrase but without any context. The video is a source for a statement like "some world leaders have uttered the phrase in the past", not for the statement "It is also commonly used in greeting to Ukraine from the world leaders". --2001:16B8:4651:BE00:A016:B55B:F9FF:23E (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

POV tag wars & Removal of POV under WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING

New to this, but read the rules regarding this and apllied them as best I understood after reviewing the edit history. As the article stands, it is not biased, it just states the uses of the phrase with citations.The POV tag is not constructive and no explaination was given on this talk page. OK there are some Russians who would like to accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis. But the reality is, there are neo-nazis in just about every country you can name. America in Charlottesville they all came out of the woodwork, Russia has them too, so did most countries in World War II, Vichy France, Croatian Ustache, UK skinheads, etc etc. "Glory to Ukraine" does not imply nazsim no more than "Glory to the USA". If the Russians who are offended would like to provide proof that this phrase is a nazi phrase then please do so. Ukrainians get called "Banderovats" for wearing a traditional Ukrainian shirt with the distinctive slavic pattern. This pattern was around 1000 years before the Nazis ever were. Personally, we need more pan-slavic unity and less aggression towards each other, but alas that will never happen. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is very interesting, but why dont you provide reliable sources to support it? --207.174.219.209 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are unreliable. This article already contains multiple mentions of the phrase being used by OUN/UPA and other Ukrainian soldiers. These are the facts. But what you want to add is an interpretation by some marginal sensationalist journalists.

Apart from the fact that you are reverting again and again to same phrase that doesn't make sense (which is a vandalism in itself), lets look at your sources:

• Haaretz article [2]: it is pretty neutral and does not support your claim.
• Arutz Sheva article [3] claims: "is a slogan of the UPA, the Ukraine Rebel Army who fought on the side of the Nazis" – as I already mentioned in my edit summary, UPA fought both against Nazis and USSR. This is reflected in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) article. So this nationalist Israely source hardly can act as reliable source. (It's like citing Breitbart or any other nationalistic website to accuse adversaries and opponents.)

Moreover, collaborating with "nazis" tactically doesn't make you a "nazi". Soviet Union, for example, started the Second World War in Europe by splitting Poland. Was Stalin a partner of Hitler at that time? Yes. Did soviets collaborate with the nazis? Yes. Are soviets nazis? No. Similar logic applies to UPA. Amakuha (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing more than your personal opinion made up out of the thin air. Once again - please provide a reliable source to support your claim. FYI, Poland also collaborated with Hitler to split Czechoslovakia. So, your attempt to compile the analogy fails. --207.174.219.209 (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not a matter of personal opinion, but that of WP:NPOV. You have provided a couple of sensationalist opinion pieces (known as yellow/tabloid press). The onus is on you to demonstrate that these are WP:RS (only to a limited extent with Haaretz as you have resorted to WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH), but have far from established that either are WP:DUE in the context of this article.

Please follow the WP:BRD protocol and continue discussions on this talk page (along with more reliable sources to back up the assertions). Do not keep reverting other editors as such activity is blatant edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"You have provided a couple of sensationalist opinion pieces" No, this is not. Please provide a proof of that. --207.174.219.209 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line, not even your own articles contain phrase "Nazi slogan", so, please, stop adding it here. It's more complicated than that and it's already reflected in this article without your additions.

If you want to simplify things as much as to put "Nazi slogan" in the header of the article, please, provide better sources, not just some tabloid material from nationalistic websites. (Though it's rather obvious, that if it really was a Nazi slogan, as you claim, Bill Clinton and other world leaders would not use it while addressing Ukrainians.) --Amakuha (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comment doesnt make any sense, cause these publications clearly attribute this slogan to Nazi collaborators, terrorists and war criminals from OUN-UPA. --207.174.219.209 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I wandered by. In my opinion, the article from Ha'aretz could be excerpted in a new section to note concern with the slogan's use during World War II. That article contains both sides of the dispute, and the incident within FIFA makes the controversy notable. There is understandable concern in Israel over any revival of Nazi-era indicia. But even that doesn't prove that current Ukrainans are using the phrase as a nod to Nazism.

By comparison, sticking in the Intro the assertion that the phrase is (also) a "Nazi slogan" seems like advocacy. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well put Spike-from-NH, the main point being that calling the slogan nazi implies advocacy, it is too strong and misleading to use in the lead in to this article. Also all the points Amakuha and Iryna Harpy make are valid and I support those statements. UPA fought EVERYONE who was not Ukrainian, nazis, soviets, poles. I think the IP editor is being difficult. Just curious for the IP editor, why so adamant that this slogan is nazi ? Was there some family ancestors who had bad experience ?. Many Ukrainians use the slogan and are not nazi, I use it for instance, so do many people here in Pokrovsk, Donetska Oblast. All normal people. It gets to the point this bystander Spike-from-NH made. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Tito. I added a sentence adapting the text from the Ha'aretz article (to the effect that "there is a controversy" rather than "one side is correct"). You guys can edit it further; am unwatching now. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

RFE

On 25 February, User:Buckshot06 reverted edits that removed a Radio Free Europe source from this article. Included with his edit was the explanation, "RFE is a perfectly valid reliable source. If you have issues with RFE, (a) raise on talkpage; if no resolution, take it to RSN." This is a strange statement and completely incorrect. Additionally, had he looked at the page history he would have seen that the issue was settled. Radio Free Europe is an official propaganda organization of the United States government with the official aim of opposing communist states, specifically the USSR. According to public documents, RFE received CIA funding for this purpose through the 1970s. The RFE source used in this article attempts to cast Glory to Ukraine as an anticommunist slogan while distancing it from right-wing nationalism. The article criticizes the USSR heavily. I would invite Buckshot to explain in what way this source is acceptable in this context, rather than reverting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbpoofs (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy concludes all of his speeches with ‘слава Україні’

The article says, ‘… has been used by many Ukrainian politicians, including Zelenskyy’ at the moment. However, I think the most prominent and noteworthy use is the fact that Zelenskyy concludes all of his speeches with it. I feel like it’s necessary to mention this in the article. Casperdewith (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you find a source that says he always ends his speeches this way? I'm not saying it's not true, I just haven't been able to find any sources in my own (admittedly brief) search. If you can track a source down, I'll try to find a place to add it into the article. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Stepan Bandera's Nazi-allied OUN-B"

I saw that @BubbleBabis re-added this phrase after @Goo3 removed it, and wanted to take this to a talk page before it had the chance to become an edit war. Seeing as neither of the editors provided reasoning in their edit summaries, can we discuss that now and get consensus for whether this should be in the article or not? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith sure, this "nazi-allied" term is a propagandist one and thus incorrect. In 1943 OUN-B declared a list of enemies of an independent Ukraine which were: nazis, USSR and Poland. That's why, nazi couldn't be their allies. Goo3 (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In the context of April 1941 it was Nazi-allied in both word and deed. This is supported both by Katchanovski's detailed historical work linked in the ref, and by the text of the Proclamation of Ukrainian Statehood (sam_ukr.jpg) where such phrases as "close alliance with National Socialist Greater Germany" and "our ally Hitler" are used. The words "Nazi-allied" was used in the article before March 2022, when someone removed it (I guess because back then it was unsourced, I don't want to think that they removed it to whitewash Bandera in the context of the 2022 war), so I reinstated it with reference to sources. Krakow in April 1941 belonged to Nazi-occupied Poland, only a clearly Nazi-allied (at THAT time) organization could be allowed to host a Congress in Nazi-occupied Poland in April 1941. BubbleBabis (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was only at that time they were Nazi-allied, why is it worth mentioning with such prominence in this article? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The "Nazi-allied" phrase isn't mentioned in the lead section, but for years there was no problem of it being mentioned somewhere in a paragraph of the "20th century" section. Bandera's OUN-B was indeed Nazi-allied in 1940-41 and 1943-45 (that is, four out of six years of its existence) while Andriy Atanasovych Melnyk's OUN-M was not. Why should these two words (together with the reference) be deleted from the second paragraph of the "20th century" section? BubbleBabis (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

for years there was no problem of it being mentioned somewhere in a paragraph of the "20th century" section That is because the article has not received scrutiny until now, because the Russian invasion of Ukraine has drawn lots of Western attention to subjects like this. It's irrelevant what the page used to look like - this is about policy.

Bandera's OUN-B was indeed Nazi-allied in 1940-41 and 1943-45 (that is, four out of six years of its existence) while Andriy Atanasovych Melnyk's OUN-M was not. I'm aware they collaborated with the Nazis - the issue here isn't about the historical group, it's with the possibly WP:UNDUE coverage of this aspect of the slogan. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Now I see that the part where "Nazi-allied" appeared, is referring to the specific "Slava Ukraini-Heroiam Slava" slogan, not to "Slava Ukraini" in general. As regards the specific "SU-HS" slogan, I think the "Nazi-allied" part is of due weight, as many sources claim that this specific version was indeed used only by Nazi collaborators in contrast to the generic "SU" that was also used by mainstream nationalists since 1917. In short, it would be WP:UNDUE to include the words "Nazi-allied" in a section discussing Slava Ukraini in general (such as the lead section), but it is not WP:UNDUE to include these words in that one paragraph referring to the specific "Slava Ukraini-Heroiam Slava" variation. (Another source mentioning the specifically Nazi-collaborationist use of "SU-HS" in the 1940s is Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe's book Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. Fascism, Genocide and Cult, page pictured here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhsZBBxWAAAA0on?format=jpg&name=900x900)BubbleBabis (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "nazi allied" is this being oversimplification of OUN-German relations. I actually read the source provided for this claim, and the author doesn't use "allied", "ally", or "alliance" to describe OUN-Germany relations, he does write "collaborated with Nazi Germany in the beginning of World War II".--Staberinde (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

With this, I’m going to remove the phrase for now. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper image

March

File:Novezhittya10121941.jpg

10 December 1941 issue of Nazi occupation administration-published local newspaper Nove Zhittya with the slogan Glory to Ukraine

@79.107.196.164:, this image (which an IP has repeatedly inserted the article) is clearly meant to smear Ukrainians by suggesting a connection to Nazis: there are large arrows added to it pointing to the Tryzub and Swastika. The words "Glory to Ukraine" are only present very little in the top (also circled by however underlined some text and added the arrows). I think it's clear that this has no place in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not meant "to smear Ukrainians" anymore than the image right under it in the article (the UPA poster from 1943 with Slava Ukraini-Heroiam slava in it. The slogan being present "very little" still makes it the central slogan of the newspaper, as much as "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" was the central slogan of Pravda although it appeared in small letters in the top right corner of it. The arrows and underlining are indeed a problem, so I'd suggest someone upload the original, non-arrowed page from here: https://www.libraria.ua/static/big_images/Nove%20zhyttia%20starokostyantyniv/19411210_013/MASTER/00001.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.196.164 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure this is free in terms of copyright? Not really sure how to check that, but if someone can confirm it is, I'll upload it myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What reason is there to highlight this particular newspaper (besides linking this slogan to Nazism)?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian copyright law for works by unknown publishers, such as this newspaper, states that copyright expires 70 years after publication, and for works by known authors 70 years after the death of the author. Yet what complicates the issue is that this particular image includes an article by Theodor Seibert, whose date of death is not known (!). I'll upload it for the moment, and if someone has information on what is the Ukrainian legislation for works by authors of unknown death date, for example if it is 120 years after publication (like in most European states), I'll have to replace it with another image from an issue that doesn't include Seibert. BubbleBabis (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Again. What reason is there to highlight this particular newspaper? Besides linking this slogan to Nazism? Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

From an IP editor’s edit summary a few days ago:

this is the very first known instance of the slogan written on official or semi-official paper, so it is important.

I was confused too at first, but I believe the IP is correct here. Hope that helps! HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the IP is not correct here. Now the image should be removed, right? "I believe" is neither enough to believe it's the first instance or that it's important. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an older instance? If so, I would have no objection to replacing the current image with that. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The default stance towards an unproved claim is - you can't use it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t make much sense. It’s certainly the earliest image on the page, at the very least. The proof for that is in the image files themselves. Shouldn’t we use the earliest image we can find? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof this image is "important". Neither it's "very first". The latter is a lie, actually. So is the former. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What? The date is right there. I said [i]t’s certainly the earliest image on the page, and I guess I'll give you the source. If we go through every image of a document or 'official' object on the page, they are:

A statue celebrating Ukraine's independence from August 2001.

The newspaper article, which dates back to 10 December 1941.

A propaganda poster for the UPA, a group which did not come into existence until 14 October 1942.

And a monument to a massacre that took place on 23 April 1943.

The newspaper article is, therefore, the oldest document on the page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source which states this is the first? And frankly this does smell of sneaky POV pushing. Volunteer Marek 13:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea, couldn’t find one. I wasn’t actually the one who added the image. I think it was this IP user who added it originally, but I could be wrong. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This image should be reinstated as it properly reflects the modern-day use of the phrase and its direct connection to the nationalists who are influenced by Stepan Bandera and OUN. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

In libraria.ua (which has cuttings from all Ukrainian newspapers), the earliest instance of a paper having as its CENTRAL slogan the "Slava Ukraini" is, actually, the sixth issue of Nove Zhittya from 18 November 1941: https://www.libraria.ua/static/big_images/Nove%20zhyttia%20starokostyantyniv/19411118_006/MASTER/00001.jpg What we have now is the thirteenth issue (10 December), so I guess I should upload the 18 November one as the earliest available (luckily, it doesn't include any article by a known author, so it falls under the 70 years since publication copyright expiration category and it is public domain since 2011 per Ukrainian law. On the issue of its importance: That Nove Zhittya published articles by Seibert, who was "the General Editor of the Völkischer Beobachter" (source: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send%3Faccession%3Dtoledo1417426182), who was therefore a highest-echelon official of Goebbels' propaganda machine, makes it kinda obvious to me that the Nove Zhittya newspaper was important for the Nazi administration in Ukraine as a tool of propaganda. I'll upload the 18 November 1941 issue as the earliest use of Slava Ukraini as the central slogan of a newspaper I have thus far found in libraria.ua. BubbleBabis (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an earlier instance of a paper with Slava Ukraini slogan from 10 July 1941: File:Sam ukr.jpg --Staberinde (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

right, so I'll put this one in the "20th century" paragraph and relocate the "Zhittya" pic to the "Controversies" paragraph. BubbleBabis (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about doing that. The paragraphs in the Controversies section are all saying the Nazi accusations are result of it being forbidden and discredited via a decades-long propaganda campaign, but the image seems to imply the opposite without really contextualizing it in the caption or anything. It doesn't seem consistent with the surrounding text, is what I'm saying.

We have an older image now, so I'm worried this might be veering into UNDUE coverage of the slogan's usage by far-right and Nazi-affiliated groups. Thing is, I don't really know enough to decide if it's actually undue, so if anyone knows more, please chime in. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition to clarify: If it's UNDUE, I'd be for removing the image, not putting it back in the 20th century section. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with @Volunteer Marek: that, even if that's not intentional, the inclusion of these images does give the smell of sneaky POV pushing. The main point to note is, of course, that none of these images is the "first" to use the slogan. Rather, these are just the first that we can find, which is not the same thing. If we could find a verifiably first ever, that would be one thing, but since that's not the case there is no particular reason to prefer an image just because we can't find an earlier one. Then, examining the history of ths slogan, it appears to have been used by all sorts of Ukranian nationalists at various times between 1917 and today, including many different nationalists during the second world war. But we're presenting three images, uncontextualized, from the nationalists associated with the Nazis. If the article contained extensive discussion about the slogan's association with Nazism, and the article doesn't do that, I can see one, contextualized, image being included. My suggestion is to remove them all. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Marek's reasoning ("not notable") for removing the image is wrong. The Act of restoration of the Ukrainian state is an important event in Ukrainian history, and as much as the page for "Za dom spremni" has images showing the slogan on official papers of the Independent State of Croatia, I can't see why the page for Slava Ukraini shouldn't also have its own. (Logically enough, the ZDS page mentions that NDH leaders closed their proclamation of independence with the slogan, which is exactly the same as what Bandera does in his own proclamation of independence as shown in the paper). BubbleBabis (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear what either of the events, especially the Za dom spremni has to do with any of this. Volunteer Marek 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It also very much appears that comparing Slava Ukraini with Za dom spremni is a false analogy and exactly the kind of POV sneakin' that I'm talking about. A better - though still imperfect analogy - would be with something like "God Bless America". I'm 100% sure that phrase has been used by some racist group at some point. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sir, you've made 3 reverts in the last three days. This is edit war. If your edit is reverted, perhaps you should discuss it and reach consensus before re-adding the image again. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

as much as the page for "Za dom spremni" has images showing the slogan on official papers of the Independent State of Croatia, I can't see why the page for Slava Ukraini shouldn't also have its own.

That's not really comparable, imo. Slava Ukraini has had tons of life as a patriotic slogan disconnected from Bandera and the UPA, while Za dom spremni - as far as I can tell - is a fascist chant and nothing else. It's important to include images of the Croatian slogan on Nazi-related documents because that's primarily what it's known for. It doesn't seem like a good analogy to me.

Like how Volunteer Marek said, I don't think it would make much sense to prominently display KKK documents with 'God Bless America' on them on the page for the American phrase. Unless there's another clear reason to keep it, I have to agree it should be removed. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've managed to find two pieces of documents from 1917 and 1919, during the Ukrainian War of Independence period. The first (journal "Nowa Rada") keeps record of the assembly in support of a democratic and independent Ukraine on March 15, 1917: https://kulturblog.sk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/slavaukr.jpg The second is Colonel W. Oskilka's greeting to Colonel G. Porochivsky in 1919, which ended with the words "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the famous Cossack army." https://kulturblog.sk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/0a7cfa7-013.jpg Is it advisable to upload these in the article? I won't be making any edit without confirmation from you. BubbleBabis (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It is okay to have some UPA related image, but we definitely don't need three of them. So if Samostina Ukraina image is added one of the other two should be cut, for example the UPA propaganda poster. I would also note that there is a general overload of images then article is read on a normal desktop screen.--Staberinde (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

April

@BubbleBabis: I noticed you re-added the Nazi and UPA images to the Gallery section. I removed them for now. If you want to re-add them, please get consensus here first. Thanks! HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Could newspapers published by occupation forces be added to the articles to illustrate that propaganda tried to appeal to occupied population? Soviet union slogan "Workers of the world, unite!" was also used in this way, see File:Pravda_Adolf_Hitler.jpg. Or just put both in Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany#Newspapers_in_occupied_countries? --Bunyk (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that they can and they should. I uploaded in the "Gallery" both Samostina Ukrayina and Nove Zhittya because these two show two different things: Samostina Ukrayina was a OUN-B newspaper echoing the program of Bandera in July 1941, while Nove Zhittya was a Nazi administration newspaper, serving Goebbels' propaganda machine directly. I'm of the opinion that both images are needed in the "Gallery" as they show two uses of the slogan by two different bodies for two different ends. BubbleBabis (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need for separate gallery section, also we already have two WW II OUN/UPA images, that's sufficient for this period, so if any new one is added then one of the existing ones should be also removed.--Staberinde (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. By including multiple images, we're explicitly linking the slogan with facism. That's not borne out by the rest of the article, which, in the main, identifies it as a relatively benign nationalist slogan. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my main gripe - it seems to contradict the rest of the article. If it was the case that it was a fascist slogan, we would need sources and the rest of the article to agree with the implications these images would place. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There are indeed many sources which state that from 1941 to 1945 the main use of the slogan was affiliated with Bandera, and the article states so in the lead section and in the 20th century section. My understanding is that, in the simple Slava Ukraini form, it's a nationalist slogan whose hijacking by fascists, however, is not something isolated and unimportant, while, in the Slava Ukraini-Heroyam Slava form, it's fascist through-and-through as much as Za dom spremni is. Right now as regards pictures, the article has:

• one picture of Taras Shevchenko to represent 19th century use
• one picture of Nowa Rada to represent Ukrainian War of Independence use
• one picture of UPA to represent 1941-45 use
• one picture of Janowa Dolina monument to represent resurgence of the slogan in the 1990s
• two 21st century (pre-2022 war) pictures (PrivatBank and Kharkiv monument)
• two NYC and Washington images from 2022 representing 2022 war-era usage

My opinion is that the two 1941 newspaper images as well as the 1919 one (which I haven't uploaded yet) are historically important enough to appear in the article, but as the presence of too many images in the main body makes it aesthetically problematic, I recommended creating the "Gallery" section for these. BubbleBabis (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There are indeed many sources which state that from 1941 to 1945 the main use of the slogan was affiliated with Bandera, and the article states so in the lead section and in the 20th century section. Can you link one of those sources? I don't see anything in the article that says it was the "main affiliation". HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The first source (Katchanovski) is right there on the article. In page 214 of the academia.edu link (https://www.academia.edu/3378079/The_Politics_of_World_War_II_in_Contemporary_Ukraine) he writes: "However, after the loss in the 2010 presidential elections, Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party and its leaders, including Yulia Tymoshenko, started also to adopt a nationalist rhetoric, and they publicly used a greeting that was used by the OUN-B and the UPA during the war. The greeting ‘Slava Ukraini’ (Glory to Ukraine) and a fascist-style hand salute were modeled by the OUN on a basis of similar greetingsand salutes by other fascist and semi-fascist parties." Fortunately Katchanovski in the footnotes gives as his source Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe's book, whose page regarding the history of the slogan I have also saved as an image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhsZBBxWAAAA0on?format=jpg&name=900x900 BubbleBabis (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@BubbleBabis: WP:WEIGHT--RegentsPark (comment) 22:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Scandalous that history of the term's use is censored

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), created under Nazi occupation by the Ukranian nationalist organization OUN-B, used this slogan in 1943–1944 while carrying out large-scale ethnic cleansing against Polish people. (See article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia.)

The people are still alive who saw their whole towns and villages massacred to the cries of this slogan "slava ukraina". That you attempt to erase this from the page is an absolute disgrace.

You think the murder of their parents and grandparents was "Russian disinformation". You mock the victims by deleting all references to the thing you wish were not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.224.131 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change you want made to the page? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This article needs to more clearly reflect the reality of the slogan, which is the modern-day use by OUN-B and other ethno-nationalist orgs in Ukraine. Trying to rewrite history and claim this is a message of peace is nonsense. Imagine if people edited an article for "Heil Hitler!" and claimed it wasn't actually about Nazis. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There must be a "Great-Russia-pedia" for this IP to edit. Such unsourced disinformation is not needed here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insults. Please avoid violating WP:PA. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to create a WP:EDITREQUEST to enact the changes you want made! Just make sure to attach a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that can be used to verify the new content. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The edits that removed the factual and cited information need to be reverted. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The OUN official salute

The academic Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe wrote that:[4] "According to the original resolutions, the OUN adopted a fascist salute, consisting of raising the right arm "slightly to the right, slightly above the peak of the head," while saying "Glory to Ukraine" (Slava Ukraïni!), and answering "Glory to the Heroes" (Heroiam Slava!)" and user @Manyareasexpert: removed[5] this part with the motivation "revert - looks like cherry-picking. discuss in talk first.". Could you explain why a scholarly source (an academic specializing in Ukrainian nationalism) would be "cherrypicking"? Mhorg (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is better mentioned in an article on Bandera or the OUN. Clearly, Bandera and the OUN used the slogan, but so did almost every other nationalist organization whether or not they were associated with the nazis. The article already says that its use by Bandera is notable, anything more is WP:UNDUE, unless there was something exceptional or different about the way OUN used it. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

agree Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So, would it be inappropriate to report the precise way in which the shout was performed the original OUN salute? What problem do we have in writing that it was performed together with the Roman salute?

Please @Manyareasexpert: could you please explain the "cherrypicking" edit summary? Mhorg (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Ukrainian Wikipedia, the response "glory to the heroes" dates to 1925. We should look for sources for that, but I submit that the focus on Bandera and the "fascist salute" is unwarranted.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Wikipedia is the worst place to looking for sources about this and we have at least two scholarly sources that state this thing. Mhorg (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article. The lead says "most notably", the body says "official". Though, frankly, I don't see a good source for official. Official does not follow from "adopted" (your source), the Atlantic Council article (cite 14) nowhere says this was an official slogan and, in fact, says that the fascist linkage of the slogan is essentially Russian propaganda. Cite 15 is inaccessible. So, in short, official is uncited and undue. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It is accessible, and this is the best scolarly source for Stepan Bandera, please read here.[6] So this was the official OUN salute. I would now like to understand why it should not be included in the article. Mhorg (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: I can't access source 15. Your source above, published by Columbia University Press, is a different one and is reliable and you should probably replace 14 and 15 with that one for the "official" statement in the body. Regardless, a detailed discussion of the use of the slogan by the fascists should be in the OUN and Bandera articles, not this one. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is an archived link, seems accessible Mhorg (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The source for Stepan Bandera fits an article on Stepan Bandera. You completely missed to address other objections raised. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert, would you please explain why did you remove the best source for the official OUN salute? Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Also, the best source for the official OUN salute fits an article on OUN. You added this into OUN article with no objections from me. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Manyareasexpert and others that this is undue here. It is relevant in the OUN article, but not here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Manyareasexpert as well. Why is the official salute of the OUN relevant to an article about "Slava Ukraini"? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: We had a source for that part of the fascist salute, but it was removed. What do you think about it? Mhorg (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The OUN adopted the greeting and added the requirement to perform a Roman salute at the second congress of OUN in Rome. They followed the standard of other fascist groups in Europe such as the Italian Fascists, the NSDAP, Ustaše etc. I don't see anything wrong with maintaining that information as long as it is written conservatively and does not suggest that the slogan Slava Ukraini is fascist in general. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with RegentsPark. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Commemorative currency

In April 2022, the Czech Republic issued a collectible banknote titled Sláva Ukrajině (Glory to Ukraine). All proceeds were used to help Ukraine. [7]

This banknote is not legal tender. The article links to the shop selling the notes [8], which is labeled "Pamětní tisk v podobě bankovky" ("Commemorative print in the form of a banknote" [9]). It can be seen that this isn't an actual banknote - among other things, it has no printed monetary value. In addition, it is issued by České dukáty, s.r.o. - only Czech National Bank can issue currency. It isn't listed on the list of commemorative banknotes at CNB, either. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was about to rewrite the sentence to "In April 2022, the Czech corporation České dukáty issued a collectible souvenir banknote titled Sláva Ukrajině (Glory to Ukraine)"; but yes, given that it's not actual currency, we can remove it altogether. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

The following sentence has been tagged as having failed verification:

• "The phrase Slava Ukraini (Glory to Ukraine!) appeared in military formations during the Ukrainian War of Independence (from 1917 to 1921)."

The reason given is that the quote from the reference in:

• "The phrase has its roots in Ukraine’s early twentieth century national liberation movement and was enthusiastically embraced by various different military formations during the failed statehood bid that saw a number of short-lived Ukrainian republics emerge in the chaotic aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution."

I have removed the 'failed verification' tag as it would appear to be that the former is simply a very simple rewording of the latter. "appeared in military formations" lines up with "was embraced by various different military formations", and "during the Ukrainian War of Independence" is "during the failed statehood bid [...] in the chaotic aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution."

There is no OR that I can see here - it's just re-wording the information from the source so that it isn't plagiarised. None of the meaning has been changed, and nothing has been said or inferred that wasn't already present in the source.

I'm adding this note to the talk page in case anyone disagrees with my analysis and still thinks the reference fails. H. Carver (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda in Ukraine

This article was in Category:Propaganda in Ukraine and then removed by User:Manyareasexpert with the comment "In the Soviet Union, the slogan "Slava Ukraini!" was forbidden and discredited via a decades-long propaganda campaign alongside the diaspora Ukrainian nationalists who used it.". This comment is not very relevant, since it is perfectly possible for something to be "forbidden and discredited" and for it to also be propaganda. Per wiki's own article, "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda" and this slogan is clearly used to persuade people to support Ukraine's war effort. That is an agenda that I support, but it is still an agenda. The article should be in the category. Furius (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So my edit summary was a quote from the article itself - In the Soviet Union, the slogan "Slava Ukraini!" was forbidden and discredited via a decades-long propaganda campaign alongside the diaspora Ukrainian nationalists who used it. - meaning that nothing in article suggest it belongs into "propaganda in Ukraine" category, but it should be categorized into "propaganda in the Soviet Union" category, instead.

Now, still, no sources categorize "Slava Ukraini!" as propaganda in Ukraine, so there is no reason to put the article into such category. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in either of those categories. The phrase itself isn't Soviet propaganda. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Lacham smert! Death to Poles! response censorship

“Also used, especially during Volhynian Genocide with response „Lacham smert’!”/“Смерть ляхам” (en. “Death to Poles”, pl. „śmierć Polakom!”).” was censorshiped by @Ermenrich, I understand that Ukraine propaganda need it now, but let’s not made blank history and don’t fake it. The sources come from Ministry of Justice (Poland) and Polskie Radio public broadcaster. This censorship is kind of Historical negationism of Nazi Ukraine genocide crimes and it shouldn’t happen on Wiki Joaziela (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hardly.

1. The first source (Polish Ministry of Justice) says this: The shocking descriptions of the crime are accompanied by historical information about Volhynia and Eastern Lesser Poland in the times of the Second Polish Republic: about the mosaic of nationalities in these areas, as well as about the origins of Ukrainian nationalism, especially under Soviet and German occupation. The bloody purges of the Polish population were carried out under the slogans "Ukraine for Ukrainians", "Ukraine as pure as a glass of water", "Smert Lacham - the glory of Ukrajini", which is also illustrated by the exhibition. This indicates the use of the slogan, but not as a response to the "glory to Ukraine" but in conjunction with it. Moreover, I would be cautious using any Polish government source given the right-wing nature of the government.
2. The source source is "histmag.org" which does not seem reliable. However, it also says However, already in the middle of 1943 in Stanisławów, according to a secret Polish report, a greeting could be heard on the street more and more often: Smert' Lacham and the reply Sława Ukraini. So glory to Ukraine is the response according to them.
3. The third source is the Polish state radio (Polskie Radio), which presents similar problems as the ministry of justice. It says: Representatives of Ukrainian circles commemorated the dead, but according to some witnesses, during the meeting, the Banderites were also praised. – The Ukrainian nationalist was the first to vote, who said that Bandera was, is and will be their hero. (...) It was also appalling that both his and each subsequent speech ended with the cry "Sława Ukrajini" ("Glory to Ukraine" - editor's note), and the participants of the ceremony loudly replied "Herojam sława" ("Glory to the heroes" - editor's note). It was a cry that was a watchword to attack Polish villages and carry out slaughter there. There is also a third part of this call - "Smert Lachom", but they did not go to that - reports a member of the Association, who participated in the celebrations in Sahryń, Wiesław Huk. The source for this assertion is apparently a member of the Association for Commemorating Poles Murdered in Volhynia.

If this really was a commonly used slogan, mention of it should be found in reliable, scholarly sources rather than from politicized Polish media and government-affiliated sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Slogan and popular response, yes indeed. The sources confirm it and are credible as government (the same government which is now giving so much help to millions of Ukrainians, so how you make assumption that it’s bias, government that support it even when it’s citizens died from Ukrainian system missile in Przewodów attack), public media agency or some members of victim history witness. Some more links to confirm (agency Institute of National Remembrance, newspapers or more victims eye witnesses:

https://edukacja.ipn.gov.pl/download/210/460874/Infografikawolynska.pdf

https://dziennikzachodni.pl/zbrodnia-wolynska-na-mariackiej-kolejna-wystawa-ipn-w-katowicach-zdjecia/ar/3432909

http://wolyn.org/index.php/informacje/789-smert-lacham-sawa-ukrajini

http://wolyn1943.wspolnotapolska.org.pl/relacje-swiadkow/smert-lacham-slawa-ukrajini-jan-wereszczynski/

https://twojradom.pl/71-rocznica-krwawej-niedzieli-na-wolyniu-slawa-ukraini-herojam-slawa-lacham-smert/5504

https://www.radiomaryja.pl/informacje/dokad-zmierza-ukraina/

ofc all of them you can try to discredit (the idea that biggest Ukrainian government support was not credible, then it was not credible and now it is credible when it support Ukraine), but it’s nothing more than historical negationism and Volhynia genocide denial Joaziela (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion about removed information from the article.

Upon request by others, I am on the talk page to discuss my additions, why I believe that they are a necessary and informative addition to the article, and why I think they shouldn't be removed. I will be going over the three additions I made to the article which were removed, and the reasons why I added them, and I think they should stay there.

1. Ukrainian fascist and nationalist groups. The reason why I added this into the article is because without context, saying "Ukrainian groups" does not mean anything. A group of friends? A group of birds? A group of objects? Saying that only "Ukrainian groups" were responsible for the popularity of the phrase would be too uninformative and unrepresentative of the history of the phrase. As cited later on in the article, although not the origins of the phrase, the phrase "Slava Ukraini" was popularised through the Ukrainian League of Fascists, which would later merge with the OUN-B, with Bandera using "Slava Ukraini, Heroyam Slava" as a slogan through World War 2. These groups (Ukrainian League of Fascists and OUN-B) were undoubtedly following nationalist and fascist ideologies (For example, OUN-B was allied with the Nazis for 4 years during World War 2, believed in the extermination of Jews as an inferior race), and denying the fact that these ideologies were present in these groups, that popularised the phrase, would simply be wrong. A scholarly article from a respected and well-established historian (Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe), covers this, but the citation from later on in the Slava Ukraini article would be removed.

2. "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists,  after having been popularized as a greeting in the early 1920s by the League of Ukrainian Fascists, which would later merge with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)" There was simply no reason to remove this sentence from the article, the way I see it. It provides a valuable insight into how the phrase got popularised, and is very relevant to the article (this sentence was from the section about the Ukrainian War of Independence and World War II, which was already covering the history of the phrase in the aforementioned wars, so it was perfectly relevant and made perfect sense to continue and talk about how the phrase gained popularity during the aforementioned wars.) The removal of this sentence, which discusses how it was popularised by fascist groups, seems nothing but an attempt to cover up the truth, and "clean up" the history of the phrase, by removing claims of its undeniable fascist links.

3. "However, some political figures have gained controversy over the use of the phrase. Germany's former foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, gained significant controversy over his use of the phrase online in 2017, with critics stating it was a neo-Nazi phrase, and likening it to someone saying "Sieg Heil" as a greeting in Germany." Prior to this sentence, the article stated some of the political figures that were using the phrase to show support with Ukraine. I believe that this is a relevant addition as it gives another example on a person who was using the phrase to show support for Ukraine, and the reactions and responses that were generated online through Gabriel's use of the phrase. There were in fact people who were criticising, along with some people who were supporting, Gabriel's use of the phrase, and it is true that in Germany in 2017 the use of the phrase was seen as very controversial and linked with fascism, explaining why some were likening it to some saying "Sieg Heil" in Germany. There was not any bias in this sentence displaying whether it should be likened to "Sieg Heil" or not, it was simply stated how many critics were reacting after seeing Gabriel's use of the statement.

Additional statement: When the user @Ermenrich removed many of my additions from the article, he wrote "Please discuss your addition trying to claim that Ukrainians are fascists in the talk page ;-)" as a note. This user claiming that my addition was trying to claim that "Ukrainians are fascists" is simply untruthful and not reflective of my additions. I added my additions to show the connotations that the phrase is known to have, and how it was used throughout history. This information is very relevant to the overall topic of "Slava Ukraini", and this information was missing in the article beforehand, so in my opinion, my additions were perfectly fair. Of course, this is just my opinion, and all of this is up to discussion and interpretation. Feel free to state what you think about these additions and whether or not they should be in the article or not. This post is a direct response to the users @Ermenrich and @Kleinpecan who had removed the information that was added into the article.

Marlin Monroe (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC).

Marlin Monroe (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This may be moot by now, as later edits seem to have closed the issue - but I wanted to leave another perspective for the record.

What you neglect to mention, is that in addition to peppering the article with various thematic connections to fascism, you also removed an entire paragraph about how the meaning of the phrase has long since lost any far-right connotations in the public imagination in modern times, especially the wake of Euromaidan, and was even chanted by participants in an LGBTQ pride parade.

The article already mentioned the use of "Slava Ukraini" by organizations such as the OUN during WWII - in the broader (and IMHO, in the correct) context of its use, its meaning, and its perception during different points in history. So this information was not missing, nor was anyone trying to "cover up the truth" by intentionally omitting it from the article. But interjecting this one particular archaic historical association throughout the rest of the article, in order to try to make an ideological point or to create a specific impression or imply an association in the mind of the reader - and, moreover, also removing info (or should I say "covering up the truth"? ahem!) as you did because it inconveniently contradicts the impression you wanted to create - these are definite violations of WP:NPOV.

The rest of your arguments are all just variations on similar accusations of "denying the truth", etc., and/or mere restatements of your original agenda or reassertions that you think your edits were appropriate and "fair". I find these reassertions unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

Your edits and your deletions gave me the definite impression that you had a political agenda: wanting to tie "Slava Ukraini" to fascism specifically, even in the modern context of the phrase's popularity after the Euromaidan and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that it is no longer perceived this way & has not been for some time. You say you wanted "to show the connotations that the phrase is known to have" -- was known, and the appropriate place to do this would therefore have been in the section on history, where in fact that information was already entirely present.

The information was already present, even though you claim it was not. I think it just wasn't as prominent as you wanted it to be, or repeated everywhere all over the place as often as suited your political perspective - see WP:WEIGHT. In this light, @Ermenrich's observation that you were intending to tar Ukrainians with the brush of fascism rings truthful, and completely reflective of your additions. I find your objections to the contrary to be rather disingenuous, and your good faith to be seriously suspect. I think his reversion of your edits was appropriate. -- Indnwkybrd (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Connection to ultra-right

I am also extremely embarrassed by the attempts in various ways to remove info from the article about the connection of this slogan with the Ukrainian ultra-right. If you lived in the USSR or the former USSR, then you will definitely associate these words with Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of your views. Moreover, for many decades this phrase was considered a political way to declare one's support for the Ukrainian right or ultra-right. In the same way you can promote that "Long live the queen" is supposedly a purely English national slogan and has nothing to do with the British monarchists. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We should base our edits not on our feelings, but on reliable sources. First off your edits [10] - It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s and is often accompanied by the response "Glory to the heroes!" "Heroiam slava!", which appeared in the 1930s among members of the ultranationalist organization OUN and UPA. - are plain wrong - check when UPA was formed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"My impressions" are incredibly easy to check against any sources and are clearly known to anyone who deals with the Ukrainian topic. Second, you are taking facts out of context. For example, the user's information above also shows its use in anti-Polish speeches by Ukrainian nationalists. You could easily check this for yourself if you really were determined to seek consensus, and not confrontation with a certain point of view. They became popular among Ukrainian nationalists in the 1930s, including those organizations that later arose. Everything is simple. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You have not addressed the point raised above - your edits - It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s and is often accompanied by the response "Glory to the heroes!" "Heroiam slava!", which appeared in the 1930s among members of the ultranationalist organization OUN and UPA. - are plain wrong - check when UPA was formed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I directly answered this, no need for casuistry (all the more literally repeating the same comment in a clearly demonstrative manner). If wording bothers you, then fix it. This is a matter of a couple of minutes and is clearly more productive than deleting text using grammar problems. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Also far-right use of the slogan is already mentioned in article, there are even two UPA related images. This attempt to push it into special prominence in lead simply fails NPOV.--Staberinde (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As short as possible and with a couple of small images "accidentally" avoiding images of right-wing radical symbols? No thanks. What is true NPOV is the attempt to remove any reference to nationalist ties in this article. The fact that you only decided to participate in the discussion after I brought it to the attention of the admins and even now are trying to act blatantly one-sided is just an extra touch to it. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is clearly presenting OUN connection as the most notable use of this phrase. You need to provide recent high quality RS to support this view. Claims about your personal life experience are not relevant.--Staberinde (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Above you have literally several POLISH, not even Russian sources that this slogan is associated with the Ukrainian ultra-right. Secondly, as I said, this is such a well-known fact that literally anyone can check it in a variety of sources. The fact that you, as a person who claims to be familiar with the Ukrainian topic and squeaks articles about it, pretends to be ignorant of this, is at least extremely suspicious. And you can ignore my answers as much as you like, simply repeating your thesis in different words, this will not change the fact that this phrase has been used for decades as a slogan of the Ukrainian ultra-right and in many respects that is why it caused such rejection in the USSR or among the peoples affected by Ukrainian nationalists. I have lived in Ukraine for more than 20 years, and my Ukrainian relatives come from Western Ukraine (my great-grandfather even participated in the funeral of the fathers of Ukrainian literature), not even Eastern. Do not make a fool out of me who does not know the history of his own people. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not base our edits on our personal experiences or we never agree.

The sources you refer to are outdated. Please provide modern (2022-) sources to support your edits. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• The page says (in the body of the page) "The modern response "Heroiam slava!" (Glory to the heroes!) appeared in the 1930s among members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)." No one was removing this. How this should be summarized/included in the lead? I think the current summary in 2nd para of the lead is adequate: "The phrase first appeared at the beginning of the 20th century in different variations, when it became popular among Ukrainians during the Ukrainian War of Independence from 1917 to 1921.[1] From the 1930s it was used by different Ukrainian groups, as well as Ukrainian diaspora groups " and so on. OUN was just one of these groups. But yes, it probably might be mentioned in the 2nd para (I have no strong opinion), rather than in the way you did. But this is not at all about Poles. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Polish sources are questionable for the reasons already explained (sourcing it to some old men, among other things). You do not have consensus - MyVeryBestWishes made the initial edit, Staberinde supported it, and I also support it. That's three to one.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So discuss them instead of just serving as cannon fodder in an edit war for my opponents. I will also note that all of you occupy a certain ideological side (you even have this very slogan on your page) cannot be considered a consensus. You're just trying to push your opinion through the power of the majority. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're just trying to push your opinion through the power of the majority. While this may be a strange concept in Russia, this is more or less how WP:CONSENSUS (and, incidentally, democracy) work...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Right now this slogan is very widely used in Ukraine by almost everyone. It is NOT exclusively "associated with the Ukrainian ultra-right" or extreme nationalism. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Solaire the knight for initiating this discussion instead of simply continuing the revert struggle in the article. There is clearly currently no consensus for the changes, which does not appear to be adequately sourced and seems to push a particular POV. The WP:ONUS is on those trying to make a change to get consensus, so the text should return to the previous version while this is debated civilly here. Please provide strong sources to back up your version persuasively. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight is right, everything is well sourced, there is no reason not to mention such an important matter in the introduction. It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists and the modern response "Heroiam slava!" (Glory to the heroes!) appeared in the 1930s among members of OUN. What specific source are you missing there? Thanks for the reply BobFromBrockley. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

everything is well sourced
I still don't see modern (post-invasion) source saying "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists" (as your edits are) without explaining the context. You have some? Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Why post-invasion? The 2017+ sources are not outdated, such old historical events have long been verified, both by older and newer sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Because new sources reflect new changes. See, for example, Likhachev "Far Right, Revolution and Symbols in Ukraine" Using the phrase “Glory to Ukraine!” or even “Glory to the nation!” no longer means, as it did ten years ago, a xenophobic anti-democratic ethno-nationalist position. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-2022 sources such as this are relevant to how we talk about the current use of the slogan and should be included as appropriate. But they don't refute the text "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s" which is currently sourced to post-2017 scholarly sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Who doesn't think it's still in this connection? Someone may still consider it so. I am not saying that this means a xenophobic anti-democratic attitude, but the earlier connection with nationalism is obvious. If the meaning of the phrase has now changed, you could add it in the introduction, I'm definitely not against it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No need for post-2022 sources for 1930s. Sources for “lexicon” in body seem to be sound to me. Which ones do you think are problematic {{Manyareasexpert}}? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Although your edit, Jirka.h23, is different from Solaire’s as it mentions OUN (a good edit, as summarises body) and not UPA (which literally didn’t exist in the time period). I think the other controversial element is “ultra-nationalist”. That’s not a inaccurate description of OUN (especially OUN-B), but it seems unnecessary in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Have edited Jrja.h23 version in a way that hopefully satisfies both sides of this argument. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this version looks good.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That version was highly redundant- the “lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists” bit is just a rather fancy way of saying information of the second paragraph of the lead. It was then further redundant by repeating “Ukrainian nationalists” twice in one sentence. Moreover, history of the slogan is covered in the next paragraph, not the first one. I have moved the bit about “glory to the heroes” to the second paragraph and deleted the “lexicon “ part.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Glory to the Cossacks"

This article [11] mentions that during the Ukrainian War of Independence the greeting was used by the "Black Cossacks" with the response "Glory to the Cossacks!" Does anyone know who the "Black Cossacks" are (a quick search on WP does dig anything up)? It might be worth adding.

Generally, other information in that article about the origin of the phrase might be worth adding, but I'd like to find better/more detailed sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I found this, substantiating what's been added to the article: [12]

The chant “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!” has its origins in the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–20. Soldiers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) came up with the slogan, “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks!” Interwar nationalists changed the latter part of the chant to “Glory to the heroes!”14 The more militant chant of “Glory to the nation! Death to the enemies!” was not connected with the OUN at all. It originated in the 1990s, in independent Ukraine, among the ranks of the right-wing organization Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNSO).15

There's also this from the same source as was originally added by Tristario [13]:

The greeting became widely popular during the Ukrainian revolution [of 1917 – Ed.]. From 1917, it was used by the squads of the black Cossacks of the Army of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, in the form Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks! In 1918, during the rule of Hetman Skoropadsky, the greeting was transformed into Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Hetman! In general, during 1918–1922 the Army of the Ukrainian People’s Republic had different variations of responses to the Glory to Ukraine! salutation, including: To Ukraine – Glory!; Glory Forever!; Faith and Glory! After the defeat of the national liberation fight [1917–1921], the salutation was revived in the community of Ukrainian youth in emigration. It became widely popular in the Ukrainian Nationalists League, established in 1925 in Czechoslovakia. The League became one of the co-founders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

This all looks like relevant information.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that some detail on the use of "Glory to the Cossacks" would be worth including Tristario (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Intro redundant and NPOV

I have displaced the too long historical debate about the origins of the motto in the history section. In fact the introduction should always be short and clear, and it wasn’t. When you say “historians” and not “some historians”, it is not NPOV, especially in a matter that is quite seen as problematic. Arorae (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Precisely

@Mhorg:. Hi you have modified the text recently ([14]) without even inserting the blue link to the League of Ukrainian Nationalists and insisting on a very minor and secondary Fascist organisation, that existed only between 1925 and 1929 (not even an article on WP!). Instead of underlining that “Slava Ukraini” already exists since almost 1860 (Shevchenko poem) and was already used by Ukraine Rada in 1917, before even the existence of any kind of “fascism” in Ukraine. I suggest that you have a look to Encyclopedia of Ukraine or to German or Italian WP that presents only facts of the history of the motto. Unfortunately this is not the case here. Arorae (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have question to latest edits, too. I'm reviewing and fixing some now. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest contributions! Arorae (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Another source

[15] The OUN and UPA greeting “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” rang out in the speeches from the Maidan stage and from the crowds. The greeting was “appropriated by the bulk of the protesters and imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity” (ibid.: 101). The crowds also sang UPA songs. “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” sounded at the mourning ceremony for the “Heavenly Hundred” on the Maidan. In this way, the greeting that served dur�ing the clashes with the riot police as a symbol of courage, devotion to Ukraine and willingness to ight, now came to stand for grief, self-sacri�ice, and gratitude of the living to the dead

With the war in Donbas unfolding, the greeting “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” became increasingly connected to the memory of the fallen Ukrainian soldiers. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

and another As participants in the Euromaidan, they understood
that the fact that Euromaidan protesters willingly used some of the outward attributes of Ukrainian
nationalism (such as the famous UPA greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine’ – ‘Glory to the heroes’) did not
mean that they adhered to the whole UPA legacy and subscribed to its view on the Ukrainian
nation (Gerasimov, 2015: 30). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750698017727806?journalCode=mssa Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Zoran Milanović

Hi, it seems that Zoran Milanović opinion [16] had little coverage by reliable secondary sources. n1info is not reliable, index.hr is a tabloid. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

[17], euronews is high quality Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Euronews is a better source, and also gives us the most accurate translation. Mhorg (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Milanović’s claims about "Slava Ukraini" mirror statements made by Russian officials about the chant.
According to the Kremlin, it is exclusively associated with the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN, a Ukrainian ultranationalist organisation whose radical faction led by Stepan Bandera collaborated with the Nazis.
Referred to as OUN-B, it carried out massacres of Poles and took part in the Holocaust in Ukraine.
According to academics and historians, "Slava Ukraini" predates the OUN, having been mentioned by the Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko in the 19th century. It was also used by various Ukrainian revolutionaries and activists well before the events of World War II.
Milanović incorrectly claimed the two phrases were equally old and compared them to the infamous Nazi German salute.
See, that's what you need secondary sources for. Please include this analysis into the article. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why the statement of the President of Croatia was removed? Mhorg (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

the statement
The statement itself is not as much important as its analysis from secondary RSs. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In the article there are presidents Von Der Leyen, Poroshenko, Zelensky, Clinton. Instead the only president who speaks of the slogan in negative terms is deleted from the article? This is a NPOV violation and I think it should be restored. Mhorg (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

von der Leyen mention uses primary source as a reference and I agree it can be removed. As well as other parts which are not supported by secondary RS. When they are supported by secondary RS, I think what's important and is to be included into wiki is which analysis a secondary source gives to facts. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Stable version

@Jirka.h23, let me remind you that the stable version everybody agrees on is this one [18] Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Votum sepratum, this version minimise fascist origins of the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is your point of view only. And we are not in Poland where one MP could vetoed and block anything. In Latin the correct spelling is "separatum". Arorae (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

So, how about we stop with reverts, get back to the stable version everybody agrees with, and work on new additions first?
My proposal: we should include [19] talking about Liebe He sees fascism everywhere, even in the greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’, groundlesslyattributing its invention to a small and little-known Ukrainian Union of Fascists(34), when in reality it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists.
Can we check if this statement is actually correct? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/28/article/569806 he chant “Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to the heroes!” has its origins in the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–20.
Soldiers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) came up with the slogan,
“Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks!”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750698017727806?journalCode=mssa
This was particularly emblematic dur�ing the football world championships after Croatia's victory over Russia when he used far-rightist salute Glory to Ukraine (Ukrainian: Слава
Україні! Героям слава!). Greeting has a firm historical background. It
was used by Ukrainian nationalists since 1917 until 1950s, especially
among supporters of Stephan Bandera. This greeting was demonized and
banned as a manifestation of Nazism in the socialist period. Critical
events at Maidan in January and February 2014 brought the extreme right
to the light of the world; although it was a minority in the protesting
crowd, it was best organized and the most visible to the public. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the stable version is one that existed since April 18 until June 1 (with one minor edit made between on May 21). If anyone wants to make significant changes, please get WP:Consensus. First of all, please start new thread on this page and justify your changes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I justified all my changes. Nothing was lost in comparison with the version labelled here as "stable" Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter if you justified your changes. It only matters if you got consensus for your changes. Right now you did not. Instead, you just violated your 0RR restriction. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to tell but I think he will not. Arorae (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The version by Marcelus heavily relies on writings by Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe and Ivan Katchanovski. Based on our BLP pages, writing by these author should be regarded as WP:BIASED, meaning these sources can be used, but require a direct attribution to authors (i.e. "According to ..."), and they should not be heavily used as "the truth". Other than that, I do not see serious problems with his version. But he is edit warring while having no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I suggest to warn him about his continuing edit war. But I do not agree with putting Rossoliński-Liebe as the golden truth: his statements are controversial. Clearly. Arorae (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I wasn't edit warring with anyone, at least not consciously. As for Rossolinski-Liebe I already voiced my opinion in another thread, in short your reservation is baseless imo, and there is no reason to not use him as reliable source. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found other scholars agreeing with Liebe on attributing the slogan to the "League of Ukrainian Fascists".

On the contrary, we have scholars saying it's incorrect. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Liebe is attributing it to LUF, Lipovetsky is attributing it to LUN, Yuzych is saying that it's most likely not true, and attributing it to the OUN-B in 1941. We are of course talking about the greeting with the response "Glory to the Heroes". My edit that you all demanded to be reverted included all these views. Marcelus (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources with quotes with dates please. My quotes are above.

We are of course talking about the greeting with the response "Glory to the Heroes" - No cherrypicking.

Clarification: My quotes are talking about the origins of the slogan. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert you can check my edits in the history. And what cherrypicking? Did you even read any of my edit? Do you know what we are talking about?

There is a greeting "Glory to the Ukraine", which is old, and the version with the response "Glory to the heroes" which is much younger, created by one of the nationalists organisations in c. 1925 or in 1941. This is the controversy, because different historians are giving different dates and name different organisations as creators.

It's not cherrypicking, but two related phenomenon. Marcelus (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

which variant is Liebe talking about? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Does it make sense to enforce such a distinction between "Glory to Ukraine!" alone, and "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" as if they're two distinct phenomena? Clearly sources think the second derived from the first. And there isn't agreement on where the response "Glory to the heroes!" (a rather generic phrase, not only used in Ukraine) originated. Tristario (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

‎Arorae revert

@‎Arorae that's another revert of my edit. Can you give reasonable explantion why you did that? This edit didn't change anything substantial in the text, it was mostly reconstruction what's already written. Your description of the rever (You cannot be the only one with separatum) isn't very helpful, and doesn't explain why you think my edit should be reverted. Please explain yourself here, because I don't really want to take it to broader audience, but the way you are acting makes me think you are not acting in a good faith. Marcelus (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my message Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602132300-Marcelus-20230602131700 regarding latest edits adding Ukrainian Union of Fascists League of Ukrainian Fascists. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because of course, your own good faith has no bias? Let me laugh, Mr votum separatum. Arorae (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. Try to focus on content, not on me. Marcelus (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t focus on you, not at all: I have absolutely no interest in what you are or should be. Even the text of Rossoliński is not respected or quoted correctly, as he never wrote that “Fascists” invented the phrase. Arorae (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't revert my changes without a proper reason. Marcelus (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602141400-Manyareasexpert-20230602121600 Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to tell, but he never answers on the point, only on his own ideas and point of view. please “don’t revert my changes”, as if they were made of gold. Arorae (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As he continues editing (and more to come) without even discussing it… Arorae (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have supplemented the article with new, source-based information. You need to write which content I have added you think is inappropriate and why, then we can talk. Marcelus (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would rather not use writings on the subject of "Ukrainian Nazi" by controversial historians who supported conspiracy theories (e.g. Ivan Katchanovski) or whose presentations have caused public protests, letters of condemnations by groups of colleagues (e.g. Per Anders Rudling or Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe). Can you do that? Or at least make an explicit attribution every time when you use such WP:BIASED sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Can you give me a source on said letters and protest about Rudling or Rossolinski-Liebe, because that's first time I hear about it. They are, especially Rossolinski-Liebe regarded as respectable scholars and qouted quite extensively in scientific literature. So I don't see any reason for not using their writing as sources. If you want to exclude them you need to make a case on WP:RN Marcelus (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am simply looking at our pages, i.e. Grzegorz_Rossoliński-Liebe#Political_reactions. It says: "Rossoliński-Liebe was invited ... to deliver six lectures about Bandera in three Ukrainian cities. ... The organizers, however, were unable to find a suitable venue in Lviv, and also, three of the four lectures in Dnipro and Kyiv were canceled a few hours prior to the event. The only lecture took place in the German embassy in Kyiv, under the protection of police ... In front of the building, approximately one hundred protesters ... tried to convince a few hundred interested students, scholars, and ordinary Ukrainians not to attend the presentation, claiming that Rossoliński-Liebe was "Joseph Goebbels' grandchild" and a "liberal fascist from Berlin" [3 refs]. With regard to Rudling, it says: Rudling became the subject of international attention in October 2012 when a group of Ukrainian organizations in Canada delivered a signed protest to his employer, accusing him of betraying his own university's principles and so on [many refs]. I never heard about these academics, but this is not normal. In my opinion, this defines them as WP:BIASED (see above), meaning I did not suggest to exclude them completely, just use other sources (if available) and provide explicit attribution. I did not check their citation indexes, but many people who create controversies are highly cited. Consider someone like David Horowitz. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You took out the quotation part: "In front of the building, approximately one hundred protesters including members of the radical-right Svoboda party". So no, we don't call an academic 'biased' because far-right protesters protest him. Mhorg (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some of them were far-right protesters, but others did not - according to cited sources. Having such public protests in response to academic lectures is highly unusual. Someone being an academic/researcher does not mean he is not biased. Frequently, it is exactly the opposite, especially in such contentious areas. As about the removed image: how do we know that the location of the memorial was provided correctly? The essence here is location. Besides, I do not think such image adds anything to the page, even if the location was correct. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes we shouldn't remove works of the scholar because he was protested by ultranationalist, neofascist party, if anything it makes him all the more reliable. Marcelus (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said their works should be removed. I only said their works sparked a lot of controversy/public reaction, which is something very different. It would be more productive if you suggest specific version of text in section "Proposed changes" you started below. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Marcelus and Mhorg, they are respectable scholars and extensively qouted, there is no reason not to mention them, I do not agree with their removal anywhere in the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Take a look at this comparison: [20], these are the changes I proposing:

• the article should be based on reliable sources, i.e. on the work of historians, especially in the historical part, so we should limit the number of newspaper articles, especially as they are easily replaceable

• the article should address the controversy over the creation of the salute in its full version (historians give different dates)

• the use of the salutation by the OUN, OUN-B, UPA should be further developed, as well as its popularisation during World War II

• we should not avoid the topic of the fascistisation of the greeting

• of minor things, I think that the whole Shevchenko poem should not be quoted, it contributes nothing

Marcelus (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602141400-Manyareasexpert-20230602121600 . To reach consensus you need to collaborate with others. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert I'm collaborating with everyone who is willing to do so, so far I didn't notice much will, only reverts and personal accusations. As for your comment that information is included in my proposition, the controversy over origins of the greeting are one of my points. Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking on #1, #2 and #5, most contributors (me including) seem to agree based on the discussions above. You are welcome to make such changes. Except that we should also use good journalistic sources like DW [21]. #3 and #4 are more tricky. Looking at the discussions above, I think that main disagreement was about the "fascistisation". What do you mean by that? The current version says: The greeting "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" later became the official slogan of Stepan Bandera's wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN-B, in April 1941. OK, No one objects to this. Can you post your suggested new version of the corresponding section here? My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

After looking more carefully on #2, I partly disagree. Yes, more info about it can/should be included, but not as was written by Marcelus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some comments: I don't see the issue with the Shevchenko poem, we have coverage of that from multiple sources. Looking at Marcelus's version, it seemed to contain some slight WP:OR by drawing more of a distinction between the "full greeting" and "glory to ukraine" than sources actually do, and was also written in a manner that I found confusing and slightly ambiguous (I think the version we currently have is easier to follow). In terms of what Rossolinski-Liebe said - we have him saying something in passing in his book which no one else seems to agree with, and it's also not actually clear what he's saying (is he saying that was the first time "Glory to Ukraine" was used, the first time it was used as a greeting, the first time it was used as an official greeting in that context, or the first time it was used in a fascist manner?). I'm also concerned about issues of relevance and WP:NPOV in Marcelus' version - it seems to specifically just be focusing on a connection to fascism Tristario (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I fully agree with Tristario. Arorae (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I too agree with everything Tristario said, including that the version by Marcelus "seems to specifically just be focusing on a connection to fascism." It should not be. I do not see any actual connection to fascism that would be established in sources. We need a source saying "Glory to Ukraine was a fascist greeting". But they do not say it. They only say such greeting was used by OUN. Yes, it was, and that is exactly what we already said on the page. We should not create the narrative about "Ukrainian fascists" my making WP:SYN or violating WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Cited from the Rossolinski book Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult (page 70): Among the organizations whose members went over to the OUN was the League of Ukrainian Fascist (SUF), which invented the fascist greeting "Glory to Ukraine!", another Rossolinski citation: ..was Bandera. As he entered, he performed a fascist salute, raising his right arm and shouting "Slava!" or "Slava Ukraïni!" All the defendants in the courtroom answered him in the same manner. I'm not saying that this slogan is necessarily connected with fascism today, but the history of this slogan should be included. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The history of the slogan is included. The article already mentions the use by the OUN, and Russolinski-Liebe is contradicted in the second citation by sources stating the greeting was invented during the Ukrainian War of Independence or earlier.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As already said by many scholars (see many discussions above), Rossoliński-Liebe has definitely a bias about attributing to “fascism” any sort of action of Bandera. Even this last quote doesn’t look very equilibrate: as you can see, in the League of Ukrainian Nationalists, from 1925 to 1929, there was a fascist movement (Mussolini was quite popular since 1922), but OUN is not, clearly and only, a fascist movement. And fascism in 1925 was not yet a racist movement. Arorae (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So, Rossolinski claimed that: "the League of Ukrainian Fascist (SUF), which invented the fascist greeting "Glory to Ukraine!...". How come? We have many sources saying that the first part of the greeting/expression "Glory to Ukraine" was NOT invented by OUN. For example, it does appear in the poem of Shevchenko much earlier, as a matter of fact. This is also an argument that Rossolinski should not be used at all as a source or be used with care. As about complete expression, no, as this source [22] say, for example, "The phrase dates back to World War I, when military units from the short-lived Ukrainian People's Republic were fighting alongside German and Austro-Hungarian soldiers against Russia. ", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The poem of Shevchenko had a similar phrase. Dw.com said that the phrase dates back to WWI, however it was in the 1930s when it really took hold becoming OUN rallying cry, meant they used it as their salute. He is well known scholar and much qouted, few protesters with far-right demonstrators can not change this. Ermenrich, yes it is included, it's fine this way, I just don't agree with possible removal.Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I question whether we should be using what someone says if we're not actually sure what they mean, and everyone else seems to disagree with them Tristario (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes For example, it does appear in the poem of Shevchenko much earlier, as a matter of fact: unfortunately, apologetic sources, seeking to remove the odium of fascism/integral nationalism from the greeting, point in a rather manipulative way to the alleged first use of the greeting in Shevchenko's poem. But in fact Shevchenko simply uses the two words, not as a greeting, but simply as a vocative.

@Tristario Of course, the article should specify when the response "Glory to the Heroes " appeared, as it is now an inseparable part of the salute as such. It is clear from the sources that the phrase "Glory to Ukraine" was in use much earlier, but when the response appeared is not so clear. We may not rely on Liebe, as he actually only repeats the findings of Ukrainian historians. Yuriy Yuzych's 2018 article gives new findings, he explicitly rejects that the response was adapted in the 1920s, instead states, clearly: Therefore, the second congress of OUN in 1941 not only established a long-formed tradition with its decree, but also added a compulsory response to the greeting: "Glory to its heroes!". Yuzych is certainly not an opponent of the OUN-UPA, but his article seems reasonably objective, based on his knowledge of the sources. Note that he makes no mention of Shevchenko. I do not agree that my proposed changes place too much emphasis on 'fascism' or have a problem with 'NPOV'. I am simply adding facts that are undoubtedly missing from the text. And all the proposals are based on sources. I am not changing the other chapters. (unsigned by Marcelus) Marcelus (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No, RS say something different about Shevchenko and the origin of the phrase. For example, [23] (a secondary academic source), says the following:

Many of these national icons have been targets of Russian propaganda. The slogan “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to Heroes!”—popularized during the Euromaidan protests—was used by the Kremlin as “evidence” that the protests were led by “Nazis” and that all Ukrainian patriots were, in fact, “Nazis.” In reality, the slogan was originally used in 1917–1921 during the struggle for Ukrainian national liberation, long before the Nazis took control of Germany. The phrase first appeared much earlier, in 1840, in a poem by prominent Ukrainian Taras Shevchenko (UkraineWorld 2021). In 2018, “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to Heroes!” was officially adopted as a greeting of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The salutation has become an everyday patriotic greeting and, when used by foreigners, it signals support for Ukraine.

My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The phrase first appeared much earlier, in 1840, the phares, not the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The phrase, not the greeting. But the source makes such connection, so should we. The greeting appear only later, but it was not OUN who authored it as a greeting - see quotation from your source below or DW ("The phrase dates back to World War I, when military units from the short-lived Ukrainian People's Republic were fighting alongside German and Austro-Hungarian soldiers against Russia."). Practically all sources say it appeared as a greeting before OUN. Yes, OUN also used it a slogan. So what? This is not Sieg Heil. It became most prominent only recently, long after the OUN. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Shevechenko simply used the phrase: Slava Ukraini, it has no relevance to the greeting. None of the sources claim that the greeting was inspired by this poem. It has no relevance to the article.

Slava Ukraini began to be used as a greeting in the early 20th century. The response was often also "Slava Ukraini", but other phrases were also used. This is fact number 1.

Fact number 2 is that the answer, "Heroiam slava", appeared as part of the fascist salute of the OUN-B in April 1941, or as suggested by the earlier authors (Liebe, Lipovetsky) in Ukrainian nationalist circles in the 1920s. This is fact number 2.

The article must present these two facts objectively but also without censoring the truth. Of course, it cannot focus only on this, but this information must be there. Marcelus (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It has no relevance to the article.

Let the source be the judge. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Check my recent changes to the Shevchenko part, I think it's satisfactory for everyone, and it follows sources more properly. Marcelus (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

he explicitly rejects that the response was adapted in the 1920s
Anybody saying that? Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point! Here is the source linked by Marcelus. I agree this is good source. It says:

The slogan "Glory to Ukraine!" and its response "Glory on all of earth!" was first used by the Kharkiv Ukrainian students' association at the end of the 19th century. The same association, at the foundation of which, the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party (RUP) was born in 1900 - the first modern Ukrainian political party under Russian occupation. The first known mention of the slogan is attributed to this event specifically....

If it "explicitly rejects" anything, this is an assertion that the wording was invented by OUN. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yuzych doesn't actually say where "Glory to the heroes!" originated though, or that the OUN-B invented that, he just says the OUN-B adopted that as its greeting. We include that in the article already. "Glory to the heroes!", like I mentioned, is not some kind of exclusive phrase, it was also used in the soviet union, [24] [25] (as, apparently, an anti-fascist slogan) for instance, and it's also now used in russia. Tristario (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. Yuzych carefully traces when "Glory to the Heroes" appears as a response to the salute and states that it appears in 1941. Marcelus (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And where does he say that? It just says they added that as compulsory response to the greeting. It doesn't seem to say anything about where that response originated from, or whether it existed before. Am I missing it? Tristario (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Tristario edit

@Tristario in your description you said: Rossolinski-liebe says "This is apparently the first recorded fascist salute that OUN members performed in public". Not, as this text might be implying, the first use of "slava ukraini" as a salute of some kind, which is ok, although I doubt anybody will get that impression because of the rest of the article that describes extensively the use of slava ukraini as salute before. Nonetheless tell me why did you remove the sentences enteirly instead of rewording it? Please self-revert, restore the text and correct the it in order the remove issue you talk about. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The removed text says: The first public use of the salute occurred in December 1935 during the interrogation of OUN member Vira Svientsitska.... That seem to contradict other sources which say the salute/greeting was used much earlier. Was not it? If so, we can not say this in WP voice, and I doubt that such incorrect/questionable claim should be included at all. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It's about OUN fascist salute, with the right hand raised. It's a first documented public display of it. Marcelus (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the greeting "Slava Ukraine" does not mean Sieg Hail and it never meant it. Yes, the greeting was used by OUN, but it was not Sieg Hail. I understand that OUN members greeted Ukraine, not Hitler. Raising hands is very common. More sources about it, not just Rossolinski-liebe, would help. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

OUN members were influenced by the Italian fascism and German nazism, and they copied their rituals and customs. The text isn't saying that the greeting was Sieg Hail, co I don't know why you mention it. Rossoliński-Liebe is good enough source, it's a factual information, that is backed up by actual source referenced by Liebe in his book. Marcelus (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

« OUN Fascist salute »? Which OUN are you speaking of? Your arguments turn to be obsessional with the fascism of OUN, so now you are just trying to demonstrate that any word of OUN should be a fascist word, but life is more complex than in the book of Rossoliński-Liebe. Arorae (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In 1930s there was only one OUN, and yes it was highly influenced by fascism, I don't see any reason why we should censor that. Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

“However, Dominique Arel, a professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Ukrainian studies, argues that citizens in the country today identify with groups such as the OUN and other nationalist movements more in the sense of resistance, such as opposition to Russian aggression, rather than because of an affinity for far-right politics or violence. "The OUN slogans – "Glory to Ukraine," "Glory to heroes" – now routinely chanted by the Ukrainian middle class, many of whom prefer to use Russian in daily life, are thus acquiring a whole new meaning," he said.” Arorae (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It says the apparently first recorded public use of the fascist salute by the OUN. Why is that relevant to this page? At best, it seems like an uncertain and only indirectly relevant piece of trivia, and at worst it could be misleading. Tristario (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the other edits you've been making appear to be relatively good though (although I haven't checked all of them), it's good you've taken account of some of the concerns on the talk page. Care should be taken with representing sources accurately though. Tristario (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss all controversial edits on a t/p, but so far I am mainly encountering WP:STONEWALLING-like arguments. This passage seems important to me because it describes what the greeting of OUN members looked like, and that they faced repression for practising it by the Polish state. Marcelus (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There are all the sources to write that the OUN was close to the ideas of fascism and was aligned with the project of the new order led by Nazi Germany. Mhorg (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Without this passage we still include that they used it with a fascist salute though

An issue here is that Rossolinski-Liebe's book is specifically focused on the various ways the OUN was connected to fascism - I'm not sure whether his book is a good guide for what is WP:DUE for the subject of this article. I'm not opposed to including some of these (or similar) details you've been including, though. We also need to be careful with what we say in wikivoice Tristario (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever not to trust the factography cited by Liebe. As I mentioned if we are to exclude him as a reliable source this should be done through WP:RN. Besides, "fascism" is not an insult, but a politological category. Among the undoubtedly fascist elements in the ideology and practice of the OUN is certainly the symbolism they used, including the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, we should not be walking in circles repeating again and again arguments opposing Liebe and your addition. Wiki articles are supposed to be written using secondary sources, not mere facts, but analysis and conclusions from secondary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying. It's a question of WP:WEIGHT (for what the subject of this article is) and WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)