This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 Yaroslav Hunka scandal. Consensus is that BLP1E is applicable here with the biography a conduit to the event, which is the notable activity here. Through the discussions here, there is a consensus among those who supports for a move to refer to the event as a scandal. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yaroslav Hunka → Yaroslav Hunka controversy – I previously nominated the page for deletion on grounds of non-notability and WP:1E. The result was Keep however many users wanted to keep and move, arguing that the event was notable, not the person. Other users disagreed, arguing that Hunka was notable in his own right. I counted at least 20 users with varying support for a move, overwhelming those explicitly against a move, however we ought to have the discussion.
There was no consensus on what the article title should be. Suggestions included "Yaroslav Hunka affair", "Yaroslav Hunka scandal", "Yaroslav Hunka controversy", or even "Canadian Parliament Nazi ovation scandal" and there is no natural candidate based on the sources, probably because the event is so recent. My preference is for Yaroslav Hunka controversy, "affair" being a bit inappropriate and "scandal" being a bit POV. cagliost (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — MaterialWorks19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This article is related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, which has been designated by the Wikipedia community as a contentious topic. Under the WP:GS/RUSUKR community sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include [...] requested moves. (You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default.) Comments by non-extended-confirmed editors have been stricken.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]SilverLocust💬03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No Move: The "controversy" or "affair" is his biography. I don't think a move is necessary since a biography will cover the incident and explain why it was controversial. I'd point to WP:1E: In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. The notabilityisnot his biography, it is the event. There are lots of non-notable former SS soldiers with similarly uninteresting biographies, he was just an unremarkable 18-year-old SS soldier. I suggest the proposed article would have his biography under a "Background" section. I don't think this is comparable to Tank Man. cagliost (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
But what makes the event notable is his biography. If he were not a former SS soldier, there would be no article here because the event would not have generated coverage. The controversy exists entirely because of his biography. That's enough for me to lean towards the WP:1E exception, but it's also totally reasonable to read that policy and favor renaming the article. Ultimately, as long as there is a redirect, people will find the article either way so it'll be okay either way in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
What makes the event notable is that an SS soldier was given a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament. Any SS soldier would do, it did not have to be Hunka. cagliost (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
No - About half of the article at this point is a detailed biography of his actions supporting Nazi Germany and an incomplete (but developing) appraisal of his post-war activity. That he's an "unremarkable 18 year old SS soldier" is a point of contention, he's active enough in the Ukrainian-Canadian activity that even if there's dozens of other former SS men like him, people can read up on his activities as the archetypal former foreign Waffen-SS volunteer.
By keeping his article the way it is- with expansions from more Ukrainian-language sources and references that examine his wartime and veteran activities- this article is useful to understand what happened to low-level Nazi collaborators and their integration with Western society post-WW2. While some may have joined neo-Nazi organizations or gotten into major political roles, Hunka merely became an ordinary- albeit remorseless- old man, and this article is very representative of the lives of most who are usually never notable enough to get their own article. If made into an article that solely focuses on the affair with only a short paragraph on Hunka's life itself, this useful biography of the average SS volunteer is lost in the English Wikipedia.
This argument makes no attempt to establish notability, indeed saying someone is an "archetype" and "this article is very representative of the lives of most who are usually never notable enough to get their own article" is sort of saying we should keep it like this because he's not notable. If you want an article about "average low-level SS volunteers", you should create such an article, using reliable sources. Such an article could use Hunka as an example, if properly sourced and not Original Research. cagliost (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, the biographical elements of the article would not be deleted, they are an important part of why the event is notable. I am just arguing the focus of the article should be about the event and not the man. cagliost (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at your draft reorganization and I'm less apprehensive of the move if nothing that is currently on this article will be expunged for being too detailed on the life of someone who doesn't have their own article. I'm still opposed to the change as I feel like the page is fine as it is and the subject is notable enough, but it's good to hear that no biological elements won't be deleted. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Begging the question. The question is not what the article currently is, it's about what it should be. Articles can be changed. cagliost (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
OpposeSupport /despite what I said in my comment here, I think that the article will flow more naturally if the primary subject becomes the event as opposed to the biography, and it will be easier to create the needed expansions; a proof of concept was made and I think shows this much/. This is the Requested move process, not the "Rewrite the article to be about something else for me" process. The subject of the article is clearly the biography of Yaroslav Hunka. Therefore the article shall be named Yaroslav Hunka. If someone wants to make very major changes to this article, such that transform the subject into something else (an event instead of a biography), he should make such changes before proposing a change of name. Even if editors were to agree, for whatever reason, that the article should bear the name of "Yaroslav Hunka controversy", that still doesn't mean that the article will stop being a biography, and that it will actually be rewritten. Because, someone has to actually do the work. And who will do it? An individual editor can boldly rewrite an article himself. The article does not need to be moved to give one a license to enact his desired changes. And instigating a change of the subject does not necessarily motivate other editors to reshape the page to fit the new subject. So, as a proof of concept for the appropriateness of a new name that corresponds to a substantially different thing being covered on this page, the content needs to be modified first, and these changes need to gain consensus, be it implicit or explicit consensus. The editor who should rewrite the article is the editor who thinks that the article should be rewritten. In this case, that is User:Cagliost. If editors should object to such changes which you may make in the live article, you can draft a replacement text on a subpage of this talk page, and propose it for adoption in an RfC.—Alalch E.16:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you're inventing problems here, it's not difficult to move the page and rewrite it slightly at the same time. Almost all moves require a little bit of re-writing -- if that were a problem, most moves could never happen! I would be happy to be bold and do it right now -- this is not a request for a technical move -- but that would no longer be appropriate given the criteria at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. The question is not about the technical process of making the move, it's about whether the person or the event is notable (WP:1E). Once we achieve consensus on that, then both making the move and rewriting the article (or not) will follow. cagliost (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
That is not true, many of the comments (I count at least 20) said things like "Keep but move", "Keep but make the article about the incident and not Hunka himself", "Move the article as per suggestions above, and have it focus on the incident first and Hunka second, as opposed the other way around. Hunka is primarily covered because of this incident", etc etc. I haven't gone ahead and moved it already because there was some opposition, as per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. That's why I've opened this discussion. cagliost (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd counter that over 50 of the comments are just keep and the closing summary was I think we're done here: serious SNOW. But you are right, a move discussion was the correct policy procedure to propose this change. However, I don't think a move supported by about 20-30% of the AFD discussion is likely to be successful given that a majority of commenters were in favor of keeping the article as is. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's say both are notable because, certainly, the person has already been identified as notable by the community. The event is notable in itself. But we are not supposed to have two articles, that much is not in dispute (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Well, in that case, you've chosen the wrong process to decide matters here. You should have come up with an alternative version of the article, your preferred version, with a standard event layout (which is not a little bit of rewriting, that's substantial rewriting and total restructuring), and started an RfC if you believed that your idea to move the primary subject from the person to the event would be met with disagreement. Or just test that by doing it boldly and see if there's opposition. Then, that would be followed with a rename. The way you've done it, there's zero chance of success. Everyone is just going to !vote "but it's a biography so the name can't be anything else".—Alalch E.17:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Update: Using the draft as a base, the article (this article) has been expanded to cover the event in more detail. This article is now an article about an event and is just superficially laid out to resemble a biography, but Hunka's biography is obviously just one element of the background of the multi-faceted incident. This does not mean that Yaroslav Hunka is not a notable individual, it just means that this article is now more of an article about an event than an article about a person. But I still don't think that there should be two articles. So I reiterate my support for moving.—Alalch E.17:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to write a Draft article at this stage, because then the discussion would devolve into a vote on my article text. I prefer a more discussion-driven approach. cagliost (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, Hunka is a private person, there is also nothing exceptional about his biography, he is a typical example of the group of 14th Galizien combatants that settled in Canada. The scope of the article needs to be changed to gather more information about the controversy. Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. 1E is an argument for deletion, not for renaming. Article seems to cover his biography appropriately, not solely the 2023 controversy. SnowFire (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
That's incorrect assessment. WP:1E determines if the article should be focused on a individual and named after him or an event, so it's fully appropiate to use in the move discussion. Marcelus (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other. What I'm saying is that the AFD found Yaroslav Hunka, the person, notable. If the person is notable, then there's no need to do such a renaming. 1E is part of a notability guideline and if Hunka was found not notable, then renaming would have been an alternative to total deletion, but that's not the case we're in. SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
"the AFD found Yaroslav Hunka, the person, notable". That's not correct, as I explain in more detail above, many comments were along the lines of "Keep but move". I made a mistake in originally nominating for deletion, because that set up a false dichotomy of "keep" versus "delete". I believe if I had started with a Move discussion, the result would have been quite different. cagliost (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
It may have been, but we are where we are now. Starting this move discussion so soon after the deletion request may have taken some of the wind from the sails, or have people thinking this is something of a proxy for that discussion. You request might also generate more sympathy if you were a bit more careful not to bludgeon this discussion. Handpigdad (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Two reasons: Firstly, while there are many parts of this biography that are not exceptional to Hunka, central to the way this event has been developing is that very unexceptionality is the point. That there are many similar life stories of Ukrainian SS officers who emmigrated to Canada without much attention paid to their past and how that might influence the way they move through society is sort of the point; this biography can represent something of an archetype. His story and the way it has apparently surprised many in Canada is the substance of the event in parliament and the aftermath since. An article about the event itself which deemphasized biographical details would be a loss to a reader's understanding of the context of the event. The argument above that the only details that should be kept in a biography are those which are responsible for notability isn't one I take. George Orwell's relationship with his mother isn't why he's notable, but it's still appropriate that she's mentioned on his page. Secondly, as this is a developing story, with the consequences not yet clear (I'm not convinced that the resignation of the speaker is going to be the most significant fallout), I could certainly see being in favour of the move once the framing is a bit clearer. As it is, the current article is adequate for explaining an emerging moment in Canadian self-conception, and I would rather the article not go through several moves and renames as the incident develops. Even what to call the proposed page is difficult: Yaroslav Hunka controversy seems weak; ditto affair comes closer, but I don't love Wikipedia designating such a proper name for an event; I would worry about discoverability, and if the framing of the event is going to remain so centered on Hunka, I would rather it stay as a biographical page. I did, however, take a look at the proposed Yaroslav Hunka controversy, and while it's a bit rough still, I think it's a good first draft. I appreciate the work you've done on putting together the draft and making your argument, cagliost, but I don't support it at this time. The draft may still be useful at a later date however. Handpigdad (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support move: Most of the keep arguments have not made a case for the notability of Hunka as an individual but only for this event (which is clearly notable, hence the lack of support for delete). Despite extensive trawling of sources, it is clear that there is nothing notable in his life up to 2023 that would justify this article. It is hard to imagine, for example, any reason why his obscure and undistinguished service as a teenager would merit even passing inclusion in any encyclopedic history of the unit he served in, apart from in relation to the attention drawn to it by this controversy. Therefore, a move would be the most appropriate way to deal with this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Support. It’s a straightforward ONEEVENT. The event actually centres around the actions of Speaker of the House Rota and the entire commons. It could have been any one of scores or hundreds of veterans with connections to the Galicia Division in the gallery, and the subject of this article would be exactly the same with a different person’s name attached. This is actually a child article of Anthony Rota#Resignation. I would suggest a better title might be Resignation of Anthony RotaorAnthony Rota scandal. —MichaelZ.01:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I don’t believe Hunka was a Nazi – member of the Nazi party. As a Ukrainian was he even eligible? You may notice that media with good editorial standards don’t use the noun Nazi when referring to him, although they say he was a member of a Nazi organization, or of one under Nazi command. —MichaelZ.22:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There are probably numerous other people like Hunka, and for all we know they may have been present. The scandal centres around the unknowing acknowledgement of a person that was former member of the Galicia Division by the speaker, the House, and the visitors present. —MichaelZ.22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Support – the most notable thing about Hunka is the fact that he's at the centre of a post-WWII Canadian political controversy. It makes sense for this article to be about the event surrounding Yaroslav Hunka, rather than Yaroslav Hunka the person. A move to either Yaroslav Hunka scandalorYaroslav Hunka controversy seems like the best course of action. XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: the proposed title does not frame the subject matter correctly; controversy is a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated". This was not the case here; instead, there was swift and widespread condemnation; the speaker resigned; prime minister apologized; university endowments were returned; etc. Yaroslav Hunka scandal would be more appropriate. That said, Hunka's biography is central to the scandal, so keeping the article at the present title is fine. WP:BIO1E does not apply due to the centrality of Hunka to the matter at hand. Likewise, the fact of his recognition by the Canadian Parlament has turned him into a public figure; he's no longer a low-profile individual. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think it's too early to determine if he is really a public figure? All the facts indicate that Hunka was an ordinary Waffen-SS soldier not involved in any crimes, and he is unlikely to face any charges. The key point in the scandal is that the Canadian parliament applauded the Waffen-SS veteran as a "hero of Canada and Ukraine." The persona of Hunka himself is quite secondary here. Marcelus (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Support. Had this "controversy" not happened, there would be no Hunka BLP (nor would there be good grounds for one). I remain open-minded that other things/events could happen that would improve the case for a standalone BLP (i.e. protracted extradition, or follow-up events/scandals involving Hunka), but as it stands now, the "controversy" is really his notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
No Move:It is not a Hunka scandal it is a Canadian Parliament scandal. And en:Wikipedia (like the other 11 language versions) has enough space for both the biography and the Canadian scandal. The scandal is not about the decisions Hunka made in his life, but the decision by Prime Minister Trudeau, Canadian House of Commons Speaker Rota, and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland to applaud as a “Canadian hero” a SS member. Hunka fought on the other side in the war that killed 42,000 Canadians! Hunka is notable in his own right, like Peter Savaryn (died in Canada) or Helmut Oberlander (died in Canada) or Vladimir Katriuk (died in Canada) or Imre FintaorLászló CsatáryorJacob Luitjens etc. And no, calling a "scandal" a scandal is not bit POV. --93.211.220.30 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support. Hunka is not notable, but the controversy surrounding his honoring is. In addition, the scandal has subsequently expanded to include Canada's honoring of fellow SS veteran Peter Savaryn, which had broader implications. Suggest moving to something like 2023 Canadian Nazi controversy. Longhornsg (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
"Hunka is not notable, but the controversy surrounding his honoring is."
How do we explain the other wikipedia sites not in English, who seems to think it's notable?
We're ground zero for the issue, and people looking at this sub-thread from other countries will wonder if we're just sweeping it under the carpet, by this whole debate.
If the event of the past couple of weeks hadn't happened, then would he have any article at all about any other aspect of his life? No. Hence, what's notable is the event. Bearcat (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The Speaker of the House made the mistake to invite Hunka because Wikipedia did not have a real page about Yaroslav Hunka. Keep the page. Akusso (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I came to this page because my search engine DuckDuckGo shows the Wikipedia profile in the search results. Without this page the information would be hidden. Why hide the information? Loamag (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn’t be hidden. If moved, the redirect from the title would probably still offer the article the same way from the search, just as Jaroslaw Hunka currently does. —MichaelZ.14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The search engine would not select the Wikipedia page on "Jaroslav Hunka" and show it on top of the search results. The other search results are low quality attempts from sites to write about Jaroslav Hunka. Wikipedia makes a difference and stands above the others. Loamag (talk) Loamag (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)^Note: Extended confirmed restrictions apply to this RM. SilverLocust03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean. It does appear to select exactly that.
When I follow that link, I see the special box with a Wikipedia excerpt and link at the top, then I see the link to this Wikipedia article as the first result. It appears the same whether I select country-specific results or not. —MichaelZ.19:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment, Move discussions are not votes, but an even split is indicative that no consensus has been achieved. So far, the responses are as follows:
14 comments that oppose a move.
9 comments that support a move.
This indicates pretty clearly that there is no consensus on moving or staying at the current title. As per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, this indicates that that no action should be taken at the current time- however, I'm not sure if this is the correct time to close the discussion and I am able to do so myself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(involved--!voted support) I suggest waiting. I think that this discussion can benefit from more input from a few more experienced editors. —Alalch E.18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s striking to me that once you remove non-extended-confirmed editors’ !votes the oppose ones drop away, which doesn’t surprise me as most of the oppose arguments here do not seem to be policy-based but instead come from a mistaken assumption that a move is some kind of censorship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Half of the page is important biographical information. If the page is moved to just describe the incident, the biographical information become less relevant.
Now you can see quickly see the allegiance to Nazi Germany and the membership to the Waffen-SS. Why not keep that? Loamag (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Half of the article is biography, the other half is the the reprehensible incident that led to the shameful resignation of Rota. If the Wikipedia Hunka article was present earlier, Rota would not make the mistake. Loamag (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
So you’re saying a Hunka biography was needed to prevent scandals before he became notable, and now no longer is. But the biographies of tens of thousands of other potentially controversial people are needed because some time in the future they could be accidentally honoured. Blatant argument to violate WP:RGW and WP:CRYSTAL. Activist Wikipedia? —MichaelZ.17:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
No. I said "If the Wikipedia Hunka article was present earlier, Rota would not make the mistake".
Yeah. But we didn’t have CRYSTAL balls to predict that Hunka would be the person introduced in the Rota House scandal. Your hindsight logic suggests we should have had a preemptive article on every possible controversial person. Every surviving former Galicia Division member, and every former German Nazi officer, Nazi party member, Waffen SS member, because they might someday be accidentally introduced and cause embarrassment. Every person associated with any military or security agency ever accused of war crimes, of every country.
This is, of course, impossible, impractical, against our notability guidelines, and contrary to the WP:FIVE that define what is encyclopedic. And so it does not work as an argument for notability of Yaroslav Hunka as a subject. —MichaelZ.15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
SupportYaroslav Hunka scandal. It's definitely risen above a mere controversy given basically everyone involved has profusely apologized for the incident. Hunka was absolutely not notable before the event, might be notable now, but not outside the bounds of WP:BLP1E. It is possible to cover his life within the context of an event article, infobox and all, kind of similar to how perpetrators of crimes will often be covered in-depth in the article on the crimes they committed. Similarly, having this be an event page would allow the page to more appropriately cover other aspects of the scandal like the Peter Savaryn OC and the existing debate over Nazi war memorials for the unit central to this scandal. Renaming wouldn't hide this information from anyone, but more accurately frames it in the context of the event and its fallout, which is the most important aspect of this. The current title would still redirect to the new article and search results would still pick up the new page, so !votes based on that should be heavily discounted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions13:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support move to Yaroslav Hunka scandal per Wikipedia:BLP1E. What kind of biography article devotes most of its content to a week-long political scandal the subject was involved in near the end of his life? --StellarHalo (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment "I previously nominated the page for deletion on grounds of non-notability" Why do we have these knee jerk reactions to erase things on Wiki like a school blackboard? The story has been on the the CBC, CBS, CNN, the BBC. I think any time people consider the thought to wipe an entry, they need to offer very good reasons why. Plenty of famous people in European history get wiped after people put in some hard work, and you need to go to the german or french or italian wiki for the details. Same thing happens with lesser known actors and actresses. If you consider the man's biography unexceptional, fine, but if terms of Canadian Political history it's a huge story, and it's been reported internationally, and debated worldwide. One day they'll have a wiki list for Canadian Nazis or WWII Collaborators, and Hunka will be on the list. Hunka is just as important as the story of Jacob Luitjens. "Jacob Luitjens (18 April 1919 – 14 December 2022) was a Dutch collaborator during World War II. He was nicknamed the terror of Roden, as he was active in and around Roden in the Drenthe Province.... After the war, on 10 September 1948, Luitjens was convicted and sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment. He evaded this punishment by fleeing to Paraguay, aided by Mennonites, using the name "Gerhard Harder". He immigrated to Canada in 1961, where he became an instructor in the Department of Botany at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver...Luitjens was stripped of his Canadian citizenship and was deported to the Netherlands, where he was imprisoned. He resumed his life sentence at a prison in Groningen until March 1995. Afterwards, the Canadian government forbade his return to Canada." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:C5B2:9A47:FA20:7987 (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Support: It seems this page was only created recently in reaction to the incident. I find very few mentions of Hunka online prior to the incident, only a few mentions of his donations to a university, and one appearance on Rebel News. I think this move makes sense. The incident is notable still. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Support: This biography is being used as a coat hanger for an entire political event in a really awkward way. The "reactions" in the article are to the scandal, not just the subject of the bio. The "background" about immigration is synthesis; background to what? The person? No--the scandal. Outriggr (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Support: Pretty clear this entire article rests on the notability of the controversy and his life details can be kept in a single section as it is now. Yeoutie (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (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.
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is detailed and referenced properly with no plagiarism issues. However, someone shared a link to the subject's blogpost (source) stating that "Hunka did not compare the men in his division to modern Jews. It was a biblical reference to the Israelites being cast away and separated unable to return to their homeland." I would like you to clarify this issue and if possible update the DYK on the basis of this info considering the ongoing controversy of the subject. Toadboy123 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@Toadboy123: Thank you for the reply. Would this work as an alternative:
ALT1: ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka compared men in his division to Jews, with allegedly similar histories of being diasporas unable to return home?
The article cited as a secondary source states he compared his people to Jews, however, I believe this is an inaccurate synthesis on behalf of the article writers as Hunka himself used the phrase "tribe of Israel" (according to Google Translate, anyways) which can be interpreted to mean a different set of people than modern day Jews. So, a more accurate DYK nomination would simply be "Israelites" based off the primary source, even if this is slightly contradicted by the Forward article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In that case we might just have to remove the factoid altogether if we are not allowed to use a primary source and the article is inaccurate as per Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. I do wish we could just cite the blog directly but Wikipedia policy does discourage that. HadesTTW (he/him • talk)
Broken English. The usage of "diasporas" is wrong, as men in Hunka's division are not a diaspora, and Jews are not a diaspora either. Namely, men in Hunka's divison can be members of a diaspora, such as the Ukrainian diaspora, but they don't constitute a diaspora as a set (diaspora attaches to the whole ethnicity / ethnoreligious group, so they can only be a subset of the relevant diaspora, not a diaspora in and of itself). Jews are a people and Jews in diaspora are the Jewish diaspora, and Jewish diaspora does not comprise all Jews, so "Jews" can't stand for "Jewish diaspora". As worded, it could also make it look as if the men in Hunka's division are "diaporas", but members of a group of individuals can not be "diaporas". (Diasporas are multiple instance of a diaspora, not multiple instances of members of a diaspora.) In terms of language usage, this hook is terrible. @Toadboy123: Hello, how should this be fixed now that you have approved the hook?—Alalch E.16:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Alalch E. I tried my best to modify the hook. ALT2: ... that Waffen-SS veteran Yaroslav Hunka drew a comparison between the men in his division and Jews, suggesting that both peoples shared the common history of being dispersed and unable to return to their homelands? Would this be fine? Also pinging @CJ-Moki: - Toadboy123 (talk) 23:01, 03 October 2023 (UTC)
@Toadboy123: I approve of this alt, it is neutral, interesting, and supported by the Forward source. My suggestions would be that the term "Waffen-SS" should be italicized and linked, and that the word "Jews" should be linked. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Alalch E. and CJ-Moki: ALT2 should not run. It seems to make a claim unsupported by the source, which says merely that he compares the veterans of his unit, who were scattered across the world, to Jews—nothing about being ... unable to return. And regardless of whether that's supported by a primary source, it seems wrong to put this person's writing comparing Nazis to Jews on the main page. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
So I'll suggest a straight hook even if it seems more suited for ITN:
@Hameltion: That Rota resigned after inviting a former Nazi soldier was already widely reported upon and, in my view, is less likely to attract a reader's interest than the other hooks. I understand the concern that the hook might be offensive, but it doesn't say or insinuate in its own voice that Nazis are similar to Jews (something that, to be clear, would be indefensible to put in wikivoice). I propose this:
@CJ-Moki: Suggest avoiding this line of hook altogether. (As a point of procedure, noting that the article currently says In 2011, he compared the Ukrainian diaspora to the Israelites, which as discussed above is not true to the RS.) Surely there are further interesting details to highlight. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@CJ-Moki: Because this article has become a redirect since its original nomination, as well the various issues with deciding on a hook above, I believe the best course of action is to end the nomination. I'm sorry, and I wish you better luck with other DYK noms in the future. Johnson52406:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I said "the rejection that was made wasn't valid", not "it shouldn't have been rejected". I clarified that in the original message and I wish you'd asked before reopening -- I was making that note to inform you and the reviewer next time of the tricky middle ground that is "rejecting based on an article being restructured". Having said that, if you think there's a new hook to be made, feel free to keep it open for that. Vaticidalprophet21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Umm... is there any way for this nom to be re-closed? There doesn't seem to be much interest in continuing the DYK by those involved since the original article became a redirect. I wouldn't care, but this is one of the older nominations, and I would like to see it finally conclude. Cheers! Johnson52416:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the knight of swords
that there's plenty of other sites for over 2 weeks now that have identified which person in the photo it was
I think we should put the photo back up, and there's no shame admitting some uncertainity.
In 1946 the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg ruled that the Waffen-SS was a criminal organization and that all of its (volunteer) members were guilty of war crimes.[1]
^Cite error: The named reference Shaller 2023 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Not done It's in linked article and didn't mention that unit (let alone Hunka) plus had caveats about when joined etc so would be synthesis to include here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Something looks odd with Kier Giles section, the reference used[9] for it is an article tearing apart his argument, but the text here is generally supportive of his arguments. Also it specifically contains the following text in rebuttal to those arguments The International Military Tribunal saw things differently at the Nuremberg Trials: in 1946 it decided that the SS was a criminal organization and that all of its (voluntary) members were guilty of war crimes. I'm not sure taz.de is a authorities source on the matter, an acedamic work would be better, but there is a mismatch between the article that is being cited and the text it is supporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know why we have a whole paragraph on Keir Giles’ personal opinion in this article (or even mention him). He’s totally not noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Giles has been extremely controversial for his strong viewpoints, and lack of balance for years.
Check out some of the reviews of his books in the journals, if you need to.
Giles might be getting the most attention of his life
Matt Taibbi said this:
The Worst Op-Ed in History?
Politico gives National Socialism its finest makeover since "Springtime for Hitler" Start with the title: “Fighting against the USSR didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi.” The Politico Europe editor approving it was either high on glue, or finally decided yesterday to come to work in his secret Schutzstaffel uniform. No other explanation fits. 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:C5B2:9A47:FA20:7987 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: Hunka was a volunteer to SS Galizien. Please read the lead of Waffen-SS here in Wikipedia: The Waffen-SS were involved in numerous atrocities. Due to its involvement in the Holocaust, the Porajmos and numerous war crimes and crimes against the civilian population, it was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1946. Therefore Waffen-SS members, with the exception of conscripts, who comprised about one third of the membership, were denied many of the rights afforded to military veterans. In Germany, the dissemination of propaganda material and the use of SS symbols are a crime and punishable by Sections 86 and 86a of the German Criminal Code." − established knowledge, not controversial.
@ActivelyDisinterested: No, Keir Giles' Politico column reads: “Fighting against the USSR didn't necessarily make you a Nazi”. And Shaller/taz contradicts and explains that if you were in the SS you were a Nazi. And that in the Nüremberg trials the Waffen-SS was ruled a criminal organization and that all of its volunteer members were guilty of war crimes. Established, not controversial, knowledge.
The SS Galizien Volunteer swore an oath to Adolf Hitler that they would serve and obey him to the death. As Per Anders Rudling noted in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies: "There is no overt indication that the unit [SS Galizien] in any way was dedicated to Ukrainian statehood, let alone independence. The volunteers committed themselves to a German victory, the New European Order, and to Adolf Hitler personally." (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/progressalberta/pages/2706/attachments/original/1595543144/They_Defended_Ukraine.pdf?1595543144 ‘They Defended Ukraine’: The 14. Waffen-GrenadierDivision der SS (Galizische Nr. 1) Revisited, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 25:3, 329-368) (Digging Deeper into NaziGate, Canadian Foreign Policy Institute with Per Anders Rudling, 5 October 2023)
The SS Galizien was not just a bunch of misunderstood good guys, who had an excruciating choice over which of two terror regimes to resist, like Giles want to make belief. Even if Hunka's unit had not been involved in war crimes, but it was, it is remarkable that the Canadian parliament would give a standing ovation to a man who for all intents and purposes fought against Canada and its allies in the Second World War. As British historian Mark Felton sarcastically put it in a recent video:
"Now if any Canadian members of Parliament are watching, this next bit might be rather difficult to understand, but the Red Army, commonly referred to as "the Russians," were our allies in World War II while the Ukrainian SS was fighting for somebody called Adolf Hitler who, according to Wikipedia, wasn't very nice." Link to video: Ukrainian SS Memorials UK. And with that said, please Wikipedia, don't fall behind the Nüremberg trials and Wikipedia.--91.54.3.183 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not a forum and nobody here is arguing that the 14th Division were misunderstood good guys so the only thing I will respond to here relates to the question of due weight. This article is currently about a single living person not about the 14th Division. We have an article about that division, and an article about the Waffen-SS of which it is part, and readers can click on the links to those articles to learn about the general crimes and convictions of the latter. If this article is on Hunka it should focus on what we know about him; there are no sources that place him at any particular event in the war. That’s all. As for Giles, his opinion piece is not a reliable source on the history and his part in this controversy is not noteworthy and I see no reason for us to mention him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
My point wasn't that Giles didn't say "Fighting against the USSR didn't necessarily make you a Nazi", but that the references for the section do contradict his opinion. Including Giles opinion without further discussion on the Waffen SS gives a false balance, but to include such commentary is undue in an article about an individual. So I would support removing the section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Something is odd with the Keir Giles section. I added this section about Giles' article here with an idea to make it more like what Keir Giles#Canada honouring an SS veteran in its Parliament currently reads (see also this edit of mine in that article), thinking that it could be a noteworthy thing, and worth including, but then I didn't finish implementing this idea. And at the moment it doesn't seem like the idea was especially good, but I'll let other decide about what to do. —Alalch E.14:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: It is the arguing of Keir Giles, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom/Chatham House. Giles is part of the war machine and he is making excuses for a Nazi: “Fighting against the USSR didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi". All our Western dissidents and anti-war journalists like Matt Taibbi (The Worst Op-Ed in History? Politico gives National Socialism its finest makeover since "Springtime for Hitler"), Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Caitlin Johnstones (When Even The Nazis Aren’t Nazis) and other left-leaning journalists and institutions have all expressed the horror and disgust about this British pro-Nazi derailment!
It is the arguing of the UCC, the politically influential, state-supported Ukrainian Canadian Congress that has responded to "Nazigate in Canadian parliament" by forthrightly defending Hunka and the “all-Ukrainian” unit in which he served. Hunka/Gunka is a member of and donor to UCC. On the front page of its website, the UCC is promoting a statement issued by the University of Toronto’s Chair of Ukrainian Studies, Paul Robert Magocsi, that obscures the relationship between the SS Galizien and the Waffen-SS. His statement culminated with the declaration that it is “not in the interests of Canada” to “besmirch the reputation of an individual,” i.e., Hunka.(ucc.calapresse.ca)
It is Ottawa’s longstanding policy, the blind spot where ethical issues were covered up in the Canadian foreign policy:
Volodymyr Kubijovyč, the founder of the SS Galizien was also the Chairman of the Ukrainian Central Committee (1939–1945), the committee was responsible for activities for the recruitment of volunteers and economic ventures. He was boss to the Nazi's top Ukrainian-language propagandist, Michael Chomiak, grandfather of Chrystia Freeland, Chomiak's writing helped fuel the Jewish genocide. Freeland stood right behind Selensky while applauding Hunka with two standing ovations. The Canadian Parliament had passed on the blind spot.
But than someone burst the bubble and scandal erupted.
"As for the Deschênes Commission, it was a whitewash organized by the Tory government of the day and under the influence of the far-right UCC. It refused to accept evidence from the Soviet Union and Poland, where the vast majority of eye witnesses to the war crimes of the Waffen-SS Galicia Division lived. The Commission found that members of the Galicia Division were not guilty of war crimes due to a legal technicality. Since Canada was not a signatory to the London Statutes establishing the Nuremberg Tribunals, it found that the Nuremberg ruling that all Waffen-SS members were war criminals had no standing in Canadian law."『The UCC played a key role during this period by leading the campaign inside and outside parliament to bring the war criminals to Canada. It disguised the Galicia Division’s Waffen-SS origins by describing it as the First Division of the Ukrainian National Army. By 1985, the UCC’s influence had grown to such an extent that both it and an organization representing the Galicia Division veterans received official standing before the Deschenes Commission, giving them powers to cross-examine witnesses and aggressively push for evidence to be excluded.』([10])
Fact is that the SS Galizien was part of the SS forces. Across occupied Europe, SS units were involved in the systematic genocide of the Jewish population, deportation of people of non-German nationality, as well as mass murder and brutal treatment of civilians. The verdict of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal revealed the essence of the SS structure, troops and military units of the SS, exposed their crimes and recognized all structures and components of the SS, except for the cavalry, as criminal organizations. --91.54.14.86 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Also better to use reliable sources to back up your arguments rather than blogs and generally unreliable ones. Kind of interesting that your arguments about Nazis in Ukraine seem to be mostly supplied by people that co-operate with or defend Nazis in contexts other than Ukraine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. This indeed is a source that could be used to mention the Tribunal without SYNTH. Personally I still think it would be UNDUE. The ruling didn’t mention the Division that Hunka was in and this remains a BLP where allegations of crime need to be carefully navigated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Some of the discussion above is misinformed. Below is my understanding. Sourced corrections are welcomed.
I haven’t read the Rudling article, but I see in the abstract that it criticizes “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist mythology”: does it overview how neutral sources depict the unit? I don’t know how it reconciles the following facts. The Galicia Division was constituted with an agreement that it would fight against the Soviets, not against Western powers. While under German command, it was not allowed to use the name UkrainianorUkraine or display Ukrainian national symbols. When German power disappeared, it reconstituted as the 1st Ukrainian Division of the Ukrainian National Army, answering to the Ukrainian National Committee.
The Nuremberg court rulings declared the Waffen SS a criminal organization and criminalized membership in it. I have not seen this called a war crime as legally defined. (German Waffen SS members were given amnesties by the 1950s, were they not?) So Galicia Division members were members of a criminal organization, which was a crime (in Germany or elsewhere?). As far as I know, Hunka is not a war criminal and has not been accused of war crimes, and it would be a severe WP:BLP violation to say so, including in talk pages.
I believe it is accurate to say Hunka “had been a member of a Nazi military organization,” “fought for the Nazis during WWII,” or maybe that he was “a former Nazi soldier.” But as far as I know, Ukrainian Galicia Division members were not Nazi Party members, were not eligible for Nazi party membership, and it would be misleading to say a member was or is “a Nazi” using the noun (which my dictionary defines as “a member of the far-right National Socialist German Workers’ Party”). I have noticed some news media stick to this with discipline, but some political statements and some other news media do not. This imprecision can be construed as a BLP violation, and must be avoided. —MichaelZ.17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There was a documentry for British TV about the 14th Waffen SS
Please add to the article the "Category:Fugitives wanted by Russia" and add to Aftermath section (Consequences for Hunka and his family) the following update:
Yaroslav Hunka according to the innacurate Foward article was comparing his unit to Jews not the Ukrainian diaspora
You should either remove this factoid, find a better source which references the actual wording (something along the lines of Tribe of Israel), or re-word this according to the foward article which references his unit.
the actual secondary source forward article:
“ In posts to the blog dated 2011 and 2010, Hunka describes 1941 to 1943 as the happiest years of his life and compares the veterans of his unit, who were scattered across the world, to Jews.”
(tagging @CJ Moki as they re-inserted the factoid)
Both the secondary source and the factoid are wrong. This is what the primary source that is linked in the Forward article says:
"I think that it was the will of God that we should go around the world like the tribe of Israel, tell the world about Ukraine, and forty five years later came to her with help."
Per WP:V the claim entirely should be removed if we can not verify the fact that he was referring to the Israelites and not Jews. The entry in the Forward article is a falsehood and its better to leave out inaccurate information than to knowingly include it. Remember, just because a RS says something doesn't mean its necessarily true. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Here’s an edited machine translation of the primary source:
I think that it was God’s will that we should travel across the world like a tribe of Israel, tell the world about Ukraine, and forty-five years later come to it with help. Our mission was difficult, because the world knew very little about us, and what it did know, this was falsely presented by our neighbors. For a person of the West, everything east from Warsaw all the way to Japan was only “Russia.” Slowly, through hard work, personal contacts, and cultured behaviour, we turned the general opinion of Western nations to “our side.”[a]
Certainly the text I found in this article, “In 2011, he compared the Ukrainian diaspora to Jews” cast the subject in a bad light by misrepresenting both the cited source and the original. —MichaelZ.19:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I see the text was originally included in the start of the article, without context, by @CJ-Moki,[11] apparently had the context first added by CJ-Moki,[12] then truncated to remove the context by @K.e.coffman,[13] and re-entered after removal, again without the context, by CJ-Moki.[14]
Yeah, this should be left out of the article, at least until there is consensus not to abuse it to make the subject look bad. I don’t really see what it contributes. —MichaelZ.19:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: To resolve the content dispute, I think the article could say According to The Forward, "In posts to the blog dated 2011 and 2010, Hunka describes 1941 to 1943 as the happiest years of his life and compares the veterans of his unit, who were scattered across the world, to Jews." Attributing and quoting The Forward directly would resolve the issue of potentially presenting a known falsehood as fact. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
You’re kinda missing the point. That’s poorly phrased so that the meaning in the original context is lost. It looks like a clumsy smear job.
And please justify relevance of this to the scandal.
(And if anything I’d say it’s according to columnist Golinkin, not the Forward, although the piece isn’t clearly labelled as either news or opinion) —MichaelZ.21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: I suppose that if the options are to A) present a falsehood from the Forward piece as fact, B) cite the WP:PRIMARY blog as a source, or to C) simply omit the factoid, we should do the third. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
A line in the introduction currently reads, Later, Hunka's identity as a former Waffen-SS member was reported by the Canadian media, receiving international attention. This is true strictly speaking, but it gives the misleading impression that the story was broken by Canadian media, which is not true. It was first reported in the media by the Forward,[1][2] which is an American publication, following a post on Twitter by Ivan Katchanovski.[3]
I have a financial COI with the Forward because I work there (although I'm choosing to make this thread in my personal capacity, not because anyone at work requested it), so I will not be editing this aspect of the article. But I'd encourage others to clarify in the article how the story came to light as part of the historical record.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
The article is detailed and referenced properly with no plagiarism issues. However, someone shared a link to the subject's blogpost (source) stating that "Hunka did not compare the men in his division to modern Jews. It was a biblical reference to the Israelites being cast away and separated unable to return to their homeland." I would like you to clarify this issue and if possible update the DYK on the basis of this info considering the ongoing controversy of the subject. Toadboy123 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Approved Toadboy123 (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
new reviewer needed to make sense of the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Because this article has become a redirect since its original nomination, as well the various issues with deciding on a hook above, I believe the best course of action is to end the nomination. I'm sorry, and I wish you better luck with other DYK noms in the future. Johnson524 06:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done It's in linked article and didn't mention that unit (let alone Hunka) plus had caveats about when joined etc so would be synthesis to include here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: It's evident from the discussion here that this request is not uncontroversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
