Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 5

Zaitsev highlights that the OUN did not identify itself with fascism, but "officially objected to this identification".

This should probably be balanced out although it is not the focus of the article so I'll leave it up to the editor's discretion. Historian Taras Kurylo says the opposite. Recommended edit if balancing out:

This is disputed by Taras Kurylo who cites an OUN theorist and the fact that the OUN set up a Commission into the Study of Fascism as evidence of OUN efforts to identify with European fascist movements.^[1]

Versions I could find online are unfortunately not text-extracted.

2A00:23C5:11E:F901:645B:4AA8:D270:EDDE (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the more common view among historians is the one of Kurylo? Wikipedia rather goes by secondary sources than primary sources, and, while the self-identification by OUN is interesting, their statements are primary sources. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

But when they're cited by historians to support a point they're making that's okay, surely? 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:645B:4AA8:D270:EDDE (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking whether Zaitsev's statement should be kept in the article, then I'd say yes it can stay. And Kurylo can be added to the article. The question is whether Kurylo needs to be attributed (This is disputed by Taras Kurylo) or whether that opinion is the majority opinion, so that this opinion can be presented in wiki voice as quasi fact while Zaitsev's point is presented as an outlier, i.e. "OUN is generally classified as fascist, but this is disputed by Zaitsev who points out that OUN itself did not identify as fascist". Nakonana (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I only meant to suggest that they should be mentioned on an equal footing as two historians who disagree, I haven't read enough of the historiography to be comfortable making that judgement. Zaitsev is set to cover this topic again (I think in more detail) in this upcoming book chapter (no date for when) where he states in an overview:

"This project seeks to move beyond the polarized perspectives of viewing Ukrainian integral nationalism as either fascist/Nazi or as part of a legitimate national liberation struggle. Instead, it acknowledges that both the European “epoch of fascism” and Ukraine’s fight for independence were critical contexts for understanding the development of Ukrainian nationalism in the interwar period."

How about: This is disputed by Taras Kurylo who argues that a Commission for the Study of Fascism that the OUN set up in 1939 intended to construct the theoretical basis for such an identification. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:CD7E:9DF2:3AF4:B5D2 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

So, an issue here is that this page is about Bandera, not the OUN, it's not really meant for a general discussion about the OUN's ideology, unless sources are discussing that in a way that connects it to Bandera. Otherwise it may be a kind of WP:OR, or at least WP:UNDUE. And checking the source, I don't think Taras Kurylo is discussing this in the context of Bandera?

This article does already include some historians discussing connections of Bandera/OUN to fascism, eg. Rudling says "Its leaders eagerly emphasized to Hitler and Ribbentrop that they shared the Nazi Weltanschauung and a commitment to a fascist New Europe".

I do think, though, there is a fair bit of space given to Zaitsev, Hunczak, and Veselý in the "Views" section, and that probably should be condensed somewhat, especially given that some of it is more about the OUN generally than Bandera himself. Tristario (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that debate is more extensively covered on Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:CD7E:9DF2:3AF4:B5D2 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ I was just trying to condense that relatively large paragraph. Is there a way it could be condensed that you would find acceptable? Tristario (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Why does it need to be condensed? And if it does, why that section? No other part can be condensed? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the above discussion? That provides the background. Tristario (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You wrote this: He points to OUN documents suggesting that it sought co-operation with the Nazis in order to achieve Ukrainian statehood, and points to the subsequent change in attitude towards them following Nazi Germany's rejection. This makes it sound as if they only cooperated with the Nazis for opportunistic reasons (ignoring their ideological agreement), and the text you removed had this line: The OUN memorandum from 14 August declares the OUN wish "to work together with Germany not from opportunism, but from a realization of the need of such cooperation for the well-being of Ukraine". You also removed mention of Bandera from the article: Hunczak observes OUN leaders', including Bandera, attitude change after 15 September 1942. The date of the attitude change is also important, because the article discusses when their friendship started, when it ended and when it was rekindled. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry my attempt at condensing the paragraph wasn't more acceptable to you, you might be right that I didn't do a very good job. Do you want to suggest a better way of condensing the paragraph, or do you wish to leave the views of Zaitsev, Hunczak, and Veselý in the article as is, without any condensation?

I was just concerned we were giving them undue weight, and it was veering into content more about the OUN than bandera. But if you want to leave them as is, that's acceptable. Tristario (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of the content is direct quotes from OUN documents. Do we have any reason to think Hunczak did not quote them faithfully? I think it provides necessary detail. If other editors agree with you, I'm not going to go WP:1AM over it. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, we can leave it. Tristario (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)