Wikiwand AI

Talk:2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverted page move

May be this title is not good, but the new title " UPA heroes naming controversy", is completely confusing. It is also incorrect: what tghe heck is "UPA heroes naming"? I guess it comes from the confused coverage. My original text clearly explained this, with sources what actually was with "Heroes of UPA". I am sorry to revert the text as well, because my references to actual President's actions were removed. I will try to restore the improvements now. --Altenmann >talk 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not move page without discussion. --Altenmann >talk 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why I do not think that the controversy was started with "UPA heroes naming ". In fact, this Polish-Ukrainian controversy existed for a long time, with notable mark being Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which outlawed "propaganda of Banderism" in Poland and stated that it was genocide by UPA.--Altenmann >talk 17:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Altenmann current controversy definitely started with the naming of the special unit after heroes of UPA by the Ukrainian president; it's the real source and core of the controversy, not the revocation of the Order of the White Eagle. UPA heroes naming controversy is equally as confusing as Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy (one could ask, which controversy we are talking about?). If you want something descriptive then Controversy over the naming of a Ukrainian special unit after the Heroes of the UPA is one of the options. Marcelus (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy is a a clear and unambiguous: it is the controversy over the order. On the other hand, what the heck is "UPA heroes naming"? Who named heroes? I don't want specifically descriptive, I just want something meaningful. I am not against your longer title, although I disagree about the starting point. The PL-UK controversy over WWII has been kindling for a long time, and naming was simply the "fire starter". For comparison, the "fire starter" for WWI was the 28 June 1914 killing in Sarajevo, but this is not the date of the start of WWI. --Altenmann >talk 00:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy is a bad title, because the controversy started earlier, with the naming of Ukrainian special unit, and continues to this day, White Eagle order was just an episode. If you don't like "UPA heroes naming" that's ok, we can move away from it. But it's important for the title to catch the essence of the controversy. For example: 140th Separate Special Purpose Regiment naming controversy Marcelus (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
How about: Polish revocation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Order of the White Eagle
No need to define when the controversy started. But the revocation of the order is what makes this event notable, compared to any other incidents involving controversial names or symbolism that didn't escalate to this level. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@Helpful Cat How did you measure that? The naming is what sparked current crisis, revocation of the order was just a postponed reaction. The controversy still continues. Marcelus (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I already gave the WWI example about the onset date. There are plenty of examples related to various protests which are sparked by something, but they are not named after the sparking event. In your favor, there are many named after the sparker as well. I suggest to wait a bit and see whether some catchy name emerges. --Altenmann >talk 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Altenmann There are plenty of examples related to various protests which are sparked by something, but they are not named after the sparking event; can you give any examples? I can't think of anything like that. Marcelus (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    As far as I am aware, Most of notable protests/scandals were named either either after the date (eg.2005 French riots: "The unrest started on 27 October at Clichy-sous-Bois, where police were investigating a reported break-in") or the essence (eg. Swill milk scandal: "In May 1858, Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper did a landmark exposé of the distillery-dairies of Manhattan"). --Altenmann >talk 17:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    P.S. the short name "Swill milk scandal" gave me an idea that your suggestion may be rendered as "Heroes of the UPA controversy" (not that I am endorsing this title). --Altenmann >talk 17:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • re: measure that – I browsed the headers in "Google news" and the ones that mention "White Eagle" beat "heroes of the UPA", like, ten to one. --Altenmann >talk 15:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    scandal and controversy is to honour and glorify Nazi collaborators and genociders, not revoke order from them for that.
    What you looked for in Google? In every article there is White Eagle because it's simple, but on Zelenskyy different variants of cyrillic script UPA, Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Ukrainska Povstanska Armiia or other way, and either Nazi, denying genocide, glorifying murderers etc ~2026-38156-05 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
This is all your personal opinion. Let's use RS, for example . It explains well the controversy. Let's use this source. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A suggestion

I would suggest not including the opinion by far-right Polish politician Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik on this page . My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

for all civilized world far is sawing people alive, disemboweling pregnant women, impaling children on pitchforks, and denying genocide, but you trying to downplaying, whitewash and whataboutism ~2026-38156-05 (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
@My very best wishes Why? Marcelus (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at the sources, I think it is OK to include it, and I did it, except that her opinion needs to be summarized briefly instead of making very long quotation . Would you agree with the version in this diff? If not, welcome to correct it.My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
We do have statements by several other prominent Polish politicians on the page. So yes, her opinion can also be included, but it should be cited only briefly, just as for other politicians. She is much less known than them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2026

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: not moved. Consensus not to move. A new RM can be opened proposing a title without "controversy". (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy → "Heroes of the UPA" unit naming controversy – The current title is inaccurate. It identifies the source of the controversy as the Polish reaction rather than its actual cause: President Zelenskyy's decision to name a special unit the "Heroes of the UPA". The Polish response was only one episode in the broader sequence of events. I propose a title that is as concise as possible while still making it clear what the dispute was about. I based it on titles such as Gulf of Mexico naming controversy and "Polish death camp" controversy. I am open to alternative suggestions.

Media coverage consistently identifies the naming of the unit as the central issue at the heart of the controversy: , , Marcelus (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

full support, as I wrote it before scandal and controversy is to honour and glorify Nazi collaborators and genociders, not revoke order from them for that. Whole controversy started with Zelenskyy honouring genocide paramilitary bands. And been already condemned by European Parliament resolution. So it's not only Polish POV. It's whole civilized world that genocide denial and glorifying Nazis is not acceptable ~2026-38156-05 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose to renaming. This has been discussed before (see section "Reverted page move" above). The controversy includes the following: (a) Zelenskyy agreeing to name the unit, (b) Nawrocki stripping him the Polish Order of the White Eagle, and (c) three former Ukrainian presidents (Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko, and Petro Poroshenko) renouncing and returning their Orders of the White Eagle to Poland in protest. This received a wide coverage in the media because Nawrocki has stripped Zelensky of the Polish Order of the White Eagle, and it is described in RS accordingly. There would be no significant controversy without it. See this secondary RS, for example. It is entitled: "Why Poland’s president is invoking wartime history in a dispute with Volodymyr Zelenskyy". Indeed, why he (Nawrocki) did it? Please read the source. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
    There would be no controversy without the naming of a military unit after the murderous Nazi-collaborating UPA bandits, specifically "UPA Heroes" ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Just to clarify, according to the RS linked above, Before being elected, Nawrocki promised to block Ukraine’s accession to Nato. He has also been against Ukraine’s membership of the EU. Zelensky has given him an opportunity to capitalise on anti-Ukrainian narratives that play well to Poles disaffected by the war.. And so on (read the source). So no, according to secondary non-partisan RS, this is all about Nawrocki and Polish politics, not about Zelenskyy. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
It probably worth mentioning on the page (from the linked source): "Nawrocki claims he revoked Zelensky’s award because “his countrymen’s pain threshold has been crossed”. It’s a strong reaction, which drastically contrasts with Nawrocki’s own previous position as head of the Institute of National Remembrance in 2023, when he stated that Ukraine was free to honour its own historical figures, including the UPA’s leaders." My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
@My very best wishes The European Parliament's condemnation, Zelenskyy's recent decisions concerning Poland, and his promise to open the archives all clearly indicate that the revocation of the order was merely the Polish response, not the source of the controversy. The controversy concerns the naming of the unit after the Heroes of the UPA and, more broadly, Ukraine's ongoing issue of glorifying World War II war criminals and Nazi collaborators. Marcelus (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Here is my reading of this. The statement by the European Parliament (this is a criticism rather than condemnation) was initiated by a group of Polish members as a reaction to the controversy created by their president. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose but rename to 2026 Order of the White Eagle controversy for clarity. "Polish" is ambiguous, as it refers to a Polish order conferred on Ukrainians. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Support as the controversy was started by Zelensky naming a unit after the murderous Nazi-collaborating UPA bandits~2026-39904-10 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment so currently we have 3 for (including OP) & 2 against. I also propose to write "UPA heroes" and not "Heroes of UPA"~2026-39904-10 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
    Just FYI, consensus is not determined by popular vote. Votes that don't have a proper explanation don't count towards anything; each vote should be accompanied by policy-based reasoning. Yue🌙 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
    The European Parliament noted that Zelenskyy was responsible for the controversy and the blame lies squarely with him. This should count toward the naming of this article as the controversy is about Zelenskyy and his actions. ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: although Zelenskyy's naming of the unit was the starting point of this incident, it only received media coverage and became notable because it escalated to the point of Poland revoking his award, per My very best wishes. Furthermore, as the article shows, Nawrocki's decision also received pushback and was controversial in itself.
That being said, weak oppose all "controversy" titles because that forces us to define which part of this event was the controversy, and because this article is about this one specific incident rather than the general controversy about UPA commemoration (unlike the Gulf of Mexico or "Polish death camps" examples given by the nominator). I suggest naming this article as an event rather than a controversy, using the articles in Category:Diplomatic incidents as a reference, such as Revocation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Order of the White Eagle or 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 07:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
@Helpful Cat article clearly shows that the decision of Zelensky sparked all the controversy, and it became notable on the European level way before Nawrocki even announced that he is considering revoking the award (which btw happened 3 weeks after the controversy started). Also it's not at this point just a Polish-Ukrainian thing, since the European parliament openly criticised Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • article clearly shows that the decision of Zelensky sparked all the controversy
I specifically addressed this: although Zelenskyy's naming of the unit was the starting point of this incident, it only received media coverage and became notable because it escalated to the point of Poland revoking his award. There's no requirement in WP:NCEVENTS that events must only be named after the first thing that triggered them.
  • and it became notable on the European level way before Nawrocki even announced that he is considering revoking the award (which btw happened 3 weeks after the controversy started)
Well, that's not true. Zelenskyy named the unit on 26 May, and Nawrocki announced he planned to revoke the award on 29 May.
  • Also it's not at this point just a Polish-Ukrainian thing, since the European parliament openly criticised Ukraine
Of course third parties are free to comment on the dispute; that doesn't make them part of the dispute. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
@Helpful CatThe European Parliament resolution is not a "commentary on" the matter but rather a reaction that makes the European Parliament one of the parties to the dispute. Nawrocki announced his intention to revoke the decoration on 29 May, but he did not actually do so until three weeks later. This clearly shows that the revocation itself was only one episode in the course of the broader controversy. Moreover, nearly a month after the decoration was revoked, the controversy is still ongoing, and Ukraine and Zelensky continue to face criticism for celebrating Nazi collaborators. Wikipedia:NCEVENTS clearly states that an article title should indicate when and where something happened, and what happened. The current title shifts the controversy three weeks forward, from Ukraine to Poland, and identifies Nawrocki rather than Zelensky as the primary source of the controversy. That is absurd. It would be like naming the article Nicolas Sarkozy corruption trial as Legion of Honour controversy. Marcelus (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • The European Parliament resolution is not a "commentary on" the matter but rather a reaction that makes the European Parliament one of the parties to the dispute.
A third party reacting to a dispute does not make them a party to the dispute. Do you think all the countries and organisations under 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident#International reaction were parties to that dispute?
  • This clearly shows that the revocation itself was only one episode in the course of the broader controversy.
You said it yourself: the revocation is part of the controversy.
I have already said that I don't support the current title, because I weakly oppose all "controversy" titles for this article. Based on WP:NCEVENTS, the best title for this article seems to be something like 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis as I suggested. When: 2026. Where: Poland and Ukraine. What: a diplomatic crisis, consisting of Zelenskyy's naming of the unit; Nawrocki's revocation of his award; and reactions to that revocation, including other Ukrainian politicians returning their awards in solidarity, and some Polish politicians supporting Nawrocki's decision and others opposing it; subsequent actions such as Ukraine opening its archives, etc. This article is about the entire incident. Nothing in WP:NCEVENTS requires articles to be named after the source of the controversy or the very first thing in the chain of events. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
"Moreover, nearly a month after the decoration was revoked, the controversy is still ongoing, and Ukraine and Zelensky continue to face criticism for celebrating Nazi collaborators."
This is true and I think it's the biggest reason why this article should be renamed. ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2026 (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.
I started a new RM below. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:RUSUKR

Does this article fall under WP:RUSUKR, which would mean extended-confirmed protection? I think so, because it's clearly directly related to the war (Zelenskyy gave the name to a unit fighting in the war and justified it with their service in the war; the Order was originally awarded for war-related reasons; Poland's support for Ukraine during the war has become a theme of the backlash). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 02:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

One can simply ask Google: "Is Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy related to the Russo-Ukrainian war?" Google Gemini says that it is related, although the direct cause is a dispute over World War II history. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Sources and historians like Snyder say the same . "He says that both sides made mistakes, but the main priority for Kyiv and Warsaw today is the real war with Russia, which is being waged by Ukraine, not Poland."My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
I've requested extended-confirmed protection at WP:RPP. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 00:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
OK. And BTW, the reburial of Andriy Melnyk (officer) is a part of this controversy and as such his biography page also fall under WP:RUSUKR, along with Flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Revert by User:Helpful Cat

Hello, @Helpful Cat, when I provide refs for the couple of statements you removed from the article, could you reinstate them? ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Since the page is extended-confirmed-protected now, you can make edit requests for any edits you want to make, including sources together with your desired changes. Any extended-confirmed user can review those edit requests, not just me. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Therefore I'm making an edit request to reinstate the following:
Andriy Melnyk line: reburial -> reburial with honors (noteworthy as it's part of the "Ukrainian pantheon" that's being built right now) - does this require a reference? we certainly do not need a reference-bloat
Ukrainian nationalist -> Nazi collaborator and Ukrainian nationalist, this is widely described in his own article, does this require a reference?
"In the meantime, negotiations were held between the Polish and Ukrainian sides and proved inconclusive. Following President Nawrocki's request, in accordance with the procedure, the Chapter of the Order (which includes the President) met on 8 June to voice its opinion." SOURCE: https://www.rp.pl/kraj/art44616121-nawrocki-daje-ukraincom-szanse-w-sprawie-orderu-krakow-testem-przed-wyborami-w-2027r
Motivating his decision, Nawrocki has said that -> Nawrocki said that
"President Nawrocki's spokesman, Rafał Leśkiewicz, clarified that the Order's statute does not permit its revoking from dead persons." SOURCE: https://tvn24.pl/plus/programy/rozmowa-piaseckiego/napiete-relacje-polski-i-ukrainy-komentuje-rafal-leskiewicz-vc9109422
"Afterward, Fogler received backlash for this and for his past cooperation with the Służba Bezpieczeństwa." Cooperation - SOURCE: https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/lista-macierewicza-cwierc-wieku-pozniej/w9b3yw7
Polish activists and public figures -> Furthermore, a group of some Polish activists aiding Ukraine
"Earlier, Snyder in his book Bloodlands noted that the UPA was responsible for up to 100,000 Polish civilian deaths, while its anti-Soviet efforts resulted in only 8,000 killed." SOURCE: given in the quote, the Snyder ref for the Polish victim figure is visible at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
hello? can you explain the revert? ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busy yesterday.
  • Andriy Melnyk line: reburial -> reburial with honors (noteworthy as it's part of the "Ukrainian pantheon" that's being built right now) - does this require a reference? we certainly do not need a reference-bloat
    • Done (I added sources that mention this)
  • Ukrainian nationalist -> Nazi collaborator and Ukrainian nationalist, this is widely described in his own article, does this require a reference?
    • Done. I followed the wording of most RSes about his reburial (which I cited), which include both his Nazi collaboration and his later detention by the Nazis.
  • "In the meantime, negotiations were held between the Polish and Ukrainian sides and proved inconclusive. Following President Nawrocki's request, in accordance with the procedure, the Chapter of the Order (which includes the President) met on 8 June to voice its opinion." SOURCE: https://www.rp.pl/kraj/art44616121-nawrocki-daje-ukraincom-szanse-w-sprawie-orderu-krakow-testem-przed-wyborami-w-2027r
    • Partially done. I guess this is the part of the source you're citing: Michał Szułdrzyński notes that, following Karol Nawrocki’s sharp reaction, the Chapter of the Order of the White Eagle convened, but the president’s decision has still not been announced. (auto-translation) This doesn't say the date, that the chapter includes Nawrocki, or that the chapter met on Nawrocki's request "in accordance with the procedure", so I added the sentence without those parts. As for inconclusive negotiations, that source doesn't include that either, but I added another source on Budanov travelling to Poland to discuss the dispute.
  • Motivating his decision, Nawrocki has said that -> Nawrocki said that
    • Done
  • "President Nawrocki's spokesman, Rafał Leśkiewicz, clarified that the Order's statute does not permit its revoking from dead persons." SOURCE: https://tvn24.pl/plus/programy/rozmowa-piaseckiego/napiete-relacje-polski-i-ukrainy-komentuje-rafal-leskiewicz-vc9109422
    • Done. Although I can't access that source, that statement was easily verifiable and I added other sources (although those sources attribute the statement to another Polish official). I added it under Polish reactions.
  • "Afterward, Fogler received backlash for this and for his past cooperation with the Służba Bezpieczeństwa." Cooperation - SOURCE: https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/lista-macierewicza-cwierc-wieku-pozniej/w9b3yw7
    • Not done. Firstly, the source is from 2017 and doesn't support the claim that Fogler received backlash after renouncing his award in 2026. Secondly, that's WP:SYNTH; what does his cooperation with the Służba Bezpieczeństwa have to do with this incident? Has any source mentioned both together? If not, that just seems like adding unrelated scandals to discredit him.
  • Polish activists and public figures -> Furthermore, a group of some Polish activists aiding Ukraine
    • Not done, no source.
  • "Earlier, Snyder in his book Bloodlands noted that the UPA was responsible for up to 100,000 Polish civilian deaths, while its anti-Soviet efforts resulted in only 8,000 killed." SOURCE: given in the quote, the Snyder ref for the Polish victim figure is visible at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
    • Not done. That's WP:SYNTH, as you're bringing together two statements Snyder made at totally different times to imply a conclusion he didn't explicitly state. Snyder's writing in Bloodlands was not about this dispute or about adjudicating whether Ukrainians' or Poles' choice to focus on different actions of the UPA is correct.
Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 23:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for these fixes. They're truly helpful :) However I should note that Melnyk also collaborated with the Nazis AFTER his detention. He was really quite a despicable figure... ~2026-41472-08 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for pointing that out. You're right per his article, and the articles I cited don't say his collaboration stopped with his detention. "Before his detention" was careless wording on my part, I've changed it now. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, everything looks good. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
thanks for fixing the Melnyk mention. my last wish is to fix the "Polish activists and public figures" mention as it seems to imply that this was some widespread, highly notable event, which it wasn't. the reaction in Poland was overwhelmingly negative so this phrasing seems inaccurate as it makes it seem more 50-50 than it really is/was. so fixing the "Polish activists and public figures" to "Furthermore, a group of some Polish activists aiding Ukraine" reads better and is more accurate. this line refers primarily to Jerzy Wójcik, a minor activist involved with aiding Ukraine. what kind of citation would satisfy you in this case? ~2026-41153-58 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
No worries. I'm okay with changing it to "a group of Polish activists and public figures" or "some Polish activists and public figures" to avoid the impression this was widely agreed on (I think both "a group" and "some" wouldn't be necessary and would be redundant).
As for the "aiding Ukraine" part: I see that the TVP World source already in the article does say these activists previously aided Ukraine, but it's in the subheadline; the body mentions the Warmth for Kyiv initiative but doesn't explicitly say these initiatives were by the same activists. I also see the NV source in the article has a list of some of the public figures; have they really all been aiding Ukraine? For this part, I think a source that discusses the Order of the Civic Future campaign and mentions the backgrounds of the activists would be good. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 08:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2026

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy → 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis – This article is about a diplomatic crisis consisting of several parts: Zelenskyy's naming of the military unit; Nawrocki's revocation of his award; and reactions to both of those actions by Polish and Ukrainian politicians and others. The current title focuses only on the second part, while the title proposed in the previous RM focused only on the first.

I suggest removing "controversy" from the title and naming it as an event according to WP:NCEVENTS. Including "controversy" forces us to choose one thing that defines the controversy (which was an issue in the previous RM), and this article is about one specific incident, not about controversy surrounding UPA commemoration or the Order of the White Eagle in general. I think 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis is the best title that fulfils WP:NCWWW and describes this event as a whole.

Sources calling this a diplomatic crisis: Notes from Poland, Reuters, Euronews, TVP World, Euromaidan Press, Deutsche Welle, RFI, France24 - Polish, Ukrainian, and international sources all use this term.

An argument in the previous RM was that the UPA unit name was the primary source of the controversy and should be in the title. However, there is no requirement in WP:NCEVENTS that incident articles must be named after the first thing in the chain of events. While Zelenskyy's decision was the starting point of this incident, not all sources agree that it started the diplomatic crisis, e.g. Reuters (President Karol Nawrocki's decision to strip Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Poland's top honour due to a dispute over the naming of an army unit after insurgents who ‌massacred Poles in World War Two unleashed the biggest diplomatic crisis between the neighbours since Russia's 2022 invasion.), France24 (The decision by President Karol Nawrocki threatens to unleash a serious diplomatic crisis between the two neighbours). Regardless, the "diplomatic crisis" title does not require us to decide what started the crisis, while a "controversy" title does require us to choose one part of the controversy, so the "diplomatic crisis" title is also more NPOV-friendly. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure in this case. Right now, the page about Polish-Ukrainian relations provides a more detailed, better and more neutral description of the subject. making it shorter and keeping this page would not be an improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Then merge superior content here, and summarize what's left there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, one can do it. But it seems that the the crisis around WWII history had started much earlier. See Poland–Ukraine_relations#2015–2021. Should this content be included to the suggested page? Yes, they are logically related. But then the title would be something like Poland–Ukraine WWII history controversy, and it would be a different page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Why not just write a Cult of Nazi collaborators in Ukraine article, that would be more accurate than "Poland-Ukraine WWII history controversy." Cuz that'd be like saying Germany has a "WWII history controversy" ~2026-39904-10 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
We had a sort of similar article and it was merged. Because the phenomenon is hugely exaggerated, with ill intentions. Of course the title that you proposed ("cult") is POV too.
I do think there should probably be an article titled something like "Controversy over the massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia", this issue has been present in Polish collective memory and affected Polish–Ukrainian relations for several decades. Super Ψ Dro 00:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The current controversy is a smaller topic than the wider Poland–Ukraine WWII history controversy, which is a topic that is smaller than the broader Polish-Ukrainie relationship (which is not limited to the WWII history and its revebrations). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak support per discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Honestly I was thinking of suggesting this exact same title. Largely agree with the OP. In my view the naming of the unit elicited a larger controversy than the revokation of the Polish order. The latter was unfit for carrying the article's title singlehandedly. Super Ψ Dro 00:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree in principle but the move should be to 2026 Ukrainian–Polish diplomatic crisis or 2026 Polish–Ukrainian diplomatic crisis per discussion above.~2026-41153-58 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    I'm fine with the adjectival form, but I think it should be Polish–Ukrainian (alphabetical order). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 02:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    if Wikipedia prescribes the alphabetical order in these cases then sure. but i dont know what Wikipedia Policy or the Manual of Style prescribe in cases like this or if either prescribe anything at all ~2026-41153-58 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
    I think it does, or at least it's the usual way or deciding which of two equal entities should go first. I support P-U of course, U-P would be weird and any articles in the U-P format need to be renamed - if they exist, which I doubt (not counting redirects, of course). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 26 July 2026 (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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks