Talk:Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators

Title

Probably this should be moved to something like List of monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada or similar. The current title implies these were erected by Nazis rather than by diaspora etc. Also the list currently includes those dedicated to Nazi collaborators rather than Nazis (that is, Germans of the Nazi party). Mellk (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) were an armed force of Nazis? CT55555 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was an SS division, though I would imagine it would fall under Nazi collaborationism. Maybe someone else will know for sure the difference in semantics, though it is probably more accurate than "Nazi monument". Regards. Mellk (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources say:

1. "Canada Has a Nazi Monument Problem" https://jacobin.com/2022/11/roman-shukhevych-monument-canada-nazi-ukrainian-ultranationalism
2. "Canada’s Nazi Monuments" https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canada-nazi-monuments-antisemitism/

I have defined this to also include Nazi collaborators, but two of the monument are to the SS, so as you note, absolutely Nazis. So I think I'm faithfully calling them what the reliable sources call them and I think it's accurate.

I could have called it List of Nazi Monuments and Monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada but that seems unwieldy and probably makes it seems like the collaboration occurred in Canada, so I think the status quo is best. CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Both also then specify monuments to Nazi collaborators. They are also considered biased sources per RSP so such language especially in the headline is not surprising (see also WP:HEADLINE) Mellk (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also biased against Nazis, but still trying (and I hope succeeding) to write this in a fair manner. But there are literally monuments to the SS. I think we're on safe territory calling the Schutzstaffel Nazis. A monument to the SS is a monument to Nazis, what ever anyones bias. Right? CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically it is to a division made up of Ukrainian collaborators, no? I am just wondering if it would be more accurate. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm using the wikipedia article as the source, which is usually a bad idea, but I doubt major inaccuracies would be up on the article. Let's assume it's accurate: It was a German SS battalion. It fought in World War II. It did have a lot of Ukrainians who joined it. It is identified very clearly at 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) as a Nazi SS division. I really think we're not in controversial territory here to call this a Nazi monument. CT55555 (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be more accurate. I think collaborationism is where where most of the academic interest is in in terms of the Galician division in particular and it is referred to as such. I do not think jacobian or thenation articles are a great source (especially reusing their provocative headlines) since they tend to skew towards Putinversteher-ism (if not soviet nostalgia) as of late. Cononsense (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

All Waffen SS including the Galician division took oaths of allegiance to Adolf Hitler, keep that in mind. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Roman Shukhevych statue

The Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) section was just blanked by an editor who said it was out of scope. As a Nazi collaborator, it is in scope. I think it should stay. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 See -->[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Roman Shukhevych was supreme commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which guess what - fought against the Nazis. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's avoid the original research and write articles based on verifiable information please. CT55555 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Online Encyclopedia of Ukraine is hosted and maintained by the University of Alberta - a reliable source. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you please be a lot more specific? It seems you've been here for years, so I think you know that you cannot just make vague claims, especially in the context of everything in the article being well cited and the article about Roman Shukhevych being really clear and well cited. You are testing the limits of assuming good faith here to not point to something specific when it is so much at odds with reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I was very specific in the first time. Not sure where you get your information from (that I have been here for years). -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 19:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I assumed from your first user name User:Gifnk dlm 2020 that you joined in 2020. I see I am in error. Nonetheless, you've been here over a year. You should know that we need reliable sources. Roman Shukhevych is well cited and notes Shukhevych's Nazi collaborations. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/ seems not like a strong sourcey in this context. Indeed I see it is hosted by a university, but I don't see any statements about editorial oversight or anything like that. I also note that the article you linked was quite light on anything to do with Nazis with regards to the UIA and the Shukhevych article is notably silent on anything to do with Nazis or Germany (neither word appears once), which is really strange considering this context. It's hardly therefore refuting what is said in this article. CT55555 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 Just a quick note. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is not an RS for this topic area. The chief editor was Volodymyr Kubiyovich, a major Nazi collaborator during WW2. We should not reference anything that relates to Ukraine and ww2 using that publication. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 As an example - this is what Encyclopedia of Ukraine says about Roman Shukhevych. Not a single word about him committing atrocities etc. This is not a RS. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 This is what Kubijovyč writes about himself in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine:

... in 1943 (He) took part in organizing the Division Galizien. In his role as head of the UCC, Kubijovyč revealed his exceptional ability as an organizer and statesman. From their inception he was the chief editor of Entsyklopediia ukraïnoznavstva (Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1949–95), Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia (2 vols, 1963, 1971), and Encyclopedia of Ukraine - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge

I guess this supposed to be a page List of memorials to Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in Canada. Obviously, Unnamed Alberta–BC mountain (formerly Mount Petain) does not belong to such list because that's a mountain, not a memorial. More importantly, I think such materials should be merged to page Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany. This might be also merged to Neo-Nazism in Canada, however I am not sure cited sources say that having such memorials is Neo-Nazism. Perhaps some of them do? My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The memorials were made after the collaboration, so that doesn't seem like a topic that covers this. The point about the mountain is well made, but the implication about making a point is incorrect and at odds with any assumption of good faith. It shouldn't matter, but I think I have a well established track record of producing encyclopaedic articles and just because this one deals with a difficult issue does not make it disruptive. I think anyone trying to push the point you are suggesting would not have included all the reports about vandalism and complaints. CT55555 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a process of editing my comment when you posted. "The memorials were made after the collaboration". That does not matter. It is common to provide info about memorials dedicated to an event (or a person) in an article about the event (or the person). My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Second reply (thanks for the AGF that was edited back in). I did try to figure out if this was Neo-Nazism, but my assessment is that it's not neo/new, it's traditional/old. It's supporters of the SS, the original Nazis.

Obviously you first thought I was bring disruptive. Having moved on, can you tell me why this ought to be merged, it's a notable topic, that satisfied WP:GNG, with reliable sources giving significant coverage. Indeed it's a difficult topic, a polarising one, but that's not a reason to delete or merge content. CT55555 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually My very best wishes has a point here CT55555. We might consider merging it, but I’m not sure about it yet. I’ll give it some thought later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually people discuss where to merge things after first making an argument about the why there is a need to move. It's not normal to just jump in with merge location suggestions without first justifying why something should be merged. It's bewildering to me that no argument has first been made about justification to move/delete/merge which would usually be something like not meeting WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, this list includes just two items: (a) St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery, or more precisely, Monument to the Glory of the UPA, and (b) bust to Roman Shukhevych, one of UPA leaders (in Edmonton). There is nothing else really. Looking at this, please see first photo and text. “Nazi Monument 14th Waffen SS” is not name of the monument, but vandalism. The actual name of the monument is "For those who fought for Ukraine’s Freedom." That is not sufficient for creating a separate list. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A list of two is indeed too short for a list article. But there are three. I see why you deleted one, the source was not clear (it just quotes opposing views). Here is a better source:

The monument is located near a cenotaph in Edmonton’s St. Michael’s Cemetery which is dedicated to the veterans of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS i.e. Jacobin (magazine) states that it is a SS memorial CT55555 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The entire cemetery with Nazi collaborators? You need something better than a single ref in Jacobin (magazine), which is a biased "socialist" source. Let's check it: [2]. It does not say such a thing. Neither does this: [3], unless I am missing something. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The CTV source quotes a Jewish group who called it a SS statue, "The second is a memorial to the 'freedom fighters' of the SS’ 14th Waffen Division, who carried out massacres of women and children,” the FSWC said." You can say the Jewish group is probably biased against Nazis (I am too and I think most of wikipedia is). The way I see it the news quotes opposing views. The analysis piece actually names it as a SS monument. I don't think any source states clearly anything about the whole cemetery, we're taking about the monument in the cemetery. Jacobin is reliable and biased left of centre. I don't think being baised towards left of centre means statements about nazi statues should be disregarded, it's not like there is a centrist or right wing news/magazine that is refuting it's a nazi statue. Nobody is refuting it's a nazi statue other than the group who built it. CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Further to that, your justification to delete this hinges on the list being of two, but it was of four until you deleted two, so this does seem a lot like a retroactive justification to delete. You said it should be merged and then gave a justification that was only true because you made it so. This does not seem like a fair chain of events. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is just an opinion by a Jewish activist who said it. You can not say it in WP voice (as you do [4]) "St. Michael’s Cemetery in Edmonton has a monument to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS". How come if it has not? I am sure there are some former Nazi buried at the cemetery (along with a lot of other people!), but is it written anywhere on the memorial "This is a monument to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS"? No, this is something vandals wrote on the memorial, is not it? Let's not follow these vandals in WP. And again, that would be just two items for the list because this is the place where bust to Shushkevich (item 2) is located. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying the Jacobin piece is an opinion piece? I don't think it is. Do you know his religion? I don't. CBC (and other sources) describe him as a historian. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/author/taylor-c-noakes-1.4775569

A vandal or vandals did write that, but that's besides the point. The reliable source said it, that's the key thing here. I don't know how you can discount that.

The bust is near, it's the same city, but not the same location. One is a cemetery, the other a youth centre. CT55555 (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an opinion can be cited (of course!), but it needs to be cited with an attribution, i.e. "According to [whom? name? what organization, exactly?], "...". My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you saying it is an opinion? Please answer the question: do you think the Jacobin piece is an opinion piece? And if so, why? You can't just discount reliable sources as opinions without good reason, nothing would stop anyone discounting any news items as the opinion of the journalist if that was how this worked. CT55555 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I mean Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, one of which is Jacobian. The author of the piece in Jacobian is not a professional historian, but a freelancer journalist. Hence, I think the opinion by a Jewish organization has more weight here. What is the name of this organization? My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center said the above (in the CTV source that you deleted). I note again that the Jacobin writer/author is indeed a historian, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (see above). CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In an attempt to reach consensus, I've made the edits that I think you are implying are needed. CT55555 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I fixed a few things. But I still think this page should be either merged or renamed to List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada. That would be a more precise/adequate title. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You have overstepped here, noting the lack of consensus. You moved it to an article header that makes no sense, as the first one is a monument to the SS, not the UIA. I think you know that Wikipedia works on consensus and I hope it is clear why I have reverted this.

If we cannot reach consensus here (give it a little time, let others join in) there are places to discuss moves. CT55555 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking on the example #1, i.e. a stone cenotaph located in Oakville in the St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery (see photo here), this seems to be exactly as example #3, i.e. the actual text at the memorial reads like "To fighters for the freedom of Ukraine", etc. while the vandals wrote "“Nazi war monument”. Sure, you can make make new section "Renaming" and discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You are adding your own analysis. I think I understand what you are trying to do, which appears to be write this article in a way that pleases more people and is sympathetic to the complexity here. And while that is nice, it's not our job as editors. Our job is to faithfully state what the reliable sources say. You can start a rename section if you want, and it should include the justification for it. I am not going to start a section on renaming it as I have no idea why you want to rename it, beyond my assumptions around kindness above.

I think it is quite normal for wikipedia to value what independent sources say about something more than what the source itself says. Like we don't quote books, we write what people say about them.

We don't quote people, we write what reliable sources say about them. Please try to apply that normal lens to this situation. CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course the article you linked above also doesn't show the whole thing, but does actually say that it is "a monument commemorating a Nazi SS division". CT55555 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's separate opinions and facts. Fact #1. It is written "Those who died for the freedom of Ukraine" on the memorial. One can check it by looking at provided photo. Fact #2. All or some of the buried people were former fighters of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Opinion: "these fighters were Nazi". My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What you said above sounds logical, but is not how Wikipedia works. There is the small detail of the photo not capturing everything, but the much more important concept in Wikipedia whereby we focus on what independent sources say about things, not what primary sources say themselves. People who do bad things tend to write about them through a less-than-idependent lens. This is a basic concept of this project that we favour secondary sources. CT55555 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No one suggests to exclude well sourced opinions. But they can not be presented as a fact in WP voice.My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources is not synonymous with opinion. CT55555 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We are not on a path to reaching consensus here. I suggest we pause, to give space to let others jump in. If that doesn't happen, we can ping some relevant projects, probably the relevant team at military history. CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A secondary source can describe facts, be an opinion, whatever. I am only saying that the monuments in this list would be more precisely defined as monuments to members of Ukrainian Insurgent Army, rather than monuments to generalized Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As a note of order, I only read straightforward text on the photo of the memorials. Interpreting Heraldry on these photo would probably be WP:OR. However, all of them do include the Coat of arms of Ukraine, so defining all of them just as memorials to Nazi would be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

[5] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See this book [6], starting from page 95. I am leaving this to others. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If you read pages 105 and 106 of this, it explains that the original monument was as you describe, but the SS insignia was added soon after. CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This book is a much better source than anything else on this page so far, and it provides a lot of detail that probably need to be included to the page (as described in the book), such as propaganda tweets by Russian Embassy, etc. There is no dispute that some former members of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) are buried there, and in that sense, it does commemorize them, along with many other Ukrainian people who where not members of this unit or even members of UIA. But what would be proper titles for this and other pages and how this should be described? As always, we should consult with the best available sources (this book). It uses titles "Ukrainian war veteran's memorial, Edmonton", and "Ukrainian Monuments ...in...Canada" (for the whole chapter). Those are proper titles we should use (or something similar). It does not say "Nazi" in the titles simply because many people buried there were not Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I mostly agree. But when you frame it as a need to find a collective name for the cemetery, I think you miss the point. This isn't a chat about renaming the cemetery. I think the nuance here is that one of the memorials was about a wider group of people and then people added the Nazi/SS emblem. If I held a meeting and only some of the invitees were Nazis, but they also put their flag up, I might need to live with that being characterised as a Nazi meeting. And I could argue it, but it would be a tough one. Nonetheless, if you have a name suggestion, I'll keep an open mind. CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How about List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada? Or you think these memorials do not commemorate fighters of Ukrainian Insurgent Army? My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We could call them lots of things that are accurate, list of granite monuments. But what makes them notable? It is the Nazi connection. Please note that is why all or most of the sources that mention them are talking about them. Any renaming suggestion, to be taken seriously, in my opinion, needs to acknowledge why they are notable. CT55555 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, this list is not notable or deserving a separate page, no matter how you name it. That's why I suggested to "merge". My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This list clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. There are reliable sources that deal with them as a collective, which is the way notability of lists is decided on Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, WP:AFD is the place/process to get wider input on that, noting the lack of consensus here. If you want to discuss a better name, go for it, I'm all ears. If you want to delete an article that is significantly covered in reliable sources, I think that will not happen. CT55555 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IDK...would Nazi-linked monuments in Canada work for you two? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not my first choice, but as a compromise to reach consensus, yes. CT55555 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 I’m also okay with a current title because WP:RS refer to these monuments as Nazi but My very best wishes has few valid points (not all UPA partisans were Nazis etc.) so maybe the proposed title will work. We probably need more than 3 of us to decide. I hope someone else will voice an opinion soon. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, this new title has the same problem as the current one. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555. Yes, the list maybe notable because there was a controversy related to these monuments (hence the subject was significantly covered in RS). But this is regardless to any possible title. The title should either follow WP:COMMON NAME or simply make a good and neutral descriptive title. Based on the best source (i.e. the single academic book cited on the page), neither "Nazi monuments" nor "Nazi-linked monuments" represent a common or a widely used naming. Hence, it should be renamed either as suggested above or in any other reasonable way. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is difficult to apply to lists. Of course the monuments are not individually best known as Nazi monuments. A list will naturally use a collective name, and if you check the reliable sources, Nazi monuments is commonly how they are collectively known.

A list of the world's fastest fast cars would include the words "fast cars" even though individually the cars will have a different name. That is not a lack of neutrality. CT55555 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am happy we agree this is not a WP:COMMON NAME. No, they are NOT collectively referred in the academic book as memorials to Nazi or their collaborators. Do we also agree that while some of the commemorated people were Nazi collaborators (although even Roman Shukhevych is not just a Nazi collaborator, he is mostly known for other things), other people buried and commemorated there were not Nazi or their collaborators (one can check the book)? My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not an article about cemeteries. It is an article about a list of things that includes monuments in two cemeteries. So your question misses the point. At this point, if we don't have consensus, let us pause and let others opine, we're not making progress as I think we consider the inclusion of the word "Nazi" to be the impossible element here. Plenty reliable sources call them Nazi memorials, even if one book doesn't. CT55555 (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question even if you think it misses the point? Actually, one good academic book outweigh a bunch of opinionated sources, especially on controversial subjects, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not answering the question on purpose. If the book said they were not Nazi monuments, you'd have a point. CT55555 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 Is monuments described as Nazi a possibility you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think anything with "Nazi" is not a good and neutral title here. There is a significant controversy if these memorials should be defined as "Nazi", according to all cited sources (hence some people vandalized these memorials, etc.) By calling them such way in the title we support a specific disputed position, one that has been asserted by vandals. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is significant controversy. Some people may be too polite to say it, but who is saying that the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) is not the SS or that the SS is not Nazi? Who is saying that Roman Shukhevych is not a Nazi collaborator?

The point made in some articles is that the vandal or vandals had a point. CT55555 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We are repeating the same over and over again. Yes, everyone agrees that Roman Shukhevych was a Nazi collaborator and a bad guy. However, nothing written on the memorials ("Those who died for the freedom of Ukraine" and Coat of arms of Ukraine) or info in the book about these memorials say that all these memorials are in fact dedicated specifically to Nazi or SS. And at least some people who are buried there were not Nazi (I think we actually agree about it, even though you refused to answer). My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume that some people in the cemetery are not nazis. It's just besides the point. The article is not about the cemeteries, it's about monuments two of which are in cemeteries and one of which is not in any cemetery. CT55555 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Again, I prefer the status quo, but I do believe in collaboration and compromise and find this just within the limits of acceptability. CT55555 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No. I simply do not think (just as CT55555) that including "described" would be an improvement. In fact, what was meant here is the List of Ukrainian Nazi monuments in Canada. As described in the book cited on the page, this is a propaganda narrative promoted by Russian Embassy in Canada, and I think it is obviously related to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If you read the sources (and agree with them) they say that indeed Russia is making the most of the situation. Their complaints did coincide with their military action. But also that doesn't make the claims untrue and there is a real issue that was for a while simply ignored and then recently rejected because it's too easy to write it off as propaganda. The majority of sources are left leaning, but not Russia affiliated in any way. Anyway, we're both crossing the line into original research/analysis here and we should lean out a bit and quote reliable sources rather than let our own analysis inform our editing.

Could the page be called List of Ukrainian Nazi monuments in Canada. It's could be. When I stared compiling it there was a mountain that was named after a French Nazi sympathiser, so it was your edits/suggestions that reduced this down to being only about Ukraine. CT55555 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I said that the suggestion by GizzyCatBella would not be an improvement, but adding word "Ukrainian" would be. However, my suggestion for the title is different: this should be Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada, similar to that in the single scholarly book on this subject used as a reference. That would allow a neutral description of controversies related to such memorials on the page. Once again, by using such descriptive title (we agreed, this is not a "common name"), i.e. "Nazi monuments", we assert in WP voice that the monuments are in fact all about Nazi, while this is a matter of controversy, with a number of people and the Catholic Church saying this is not the case, while others vandalize the memorials to prove their point about "Nazi". Contrary to your claim above, that would not negatively affect notability of the page (but rather improve it) because the coverage of the subject in RS would be wider. My very best wishes (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether "Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada" would work, since that would expand the scope of this page to much more than what's actually of interest.

The content of this page is actually covered by the articles 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) and Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton). So I don't actually see why this deserves its own page. Not everything needs to be made into a list, and I'm not actually seeing any compelling reasons why that should be done here. On top of the difficulty of choosing a WP:NPOV name for this page, I think there may be a good argument for deletion. Tristario (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I just went through all of the sources in this article, and the only source which directly calls these "Nazi monuments" or "Nazi memorials" (without attribution and without scarequotes, and per WP:HEADLINES, in the body of the article) is this article, which is a biased source, and arguably an opinion piece. So, whatever happens with this article, the title needs to be changed, it is not a WP:NPOV compliant title Tristario (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have two questions:

1. Do you think there is any doubt that the SS is a Nazi organisation? You realise that two of these are monuments to an SS division?
2. Did you read this one: https://jacobin.com/2022/11/roman-shukhevych-monument-canada-nazi-ukrainian-ultranationalism or this one https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime (both are clear about these being Nazi monuments, not as a quotation, not just in the headline.

CT55555 (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The most common wording in the sources is something along the lines of "nazi collaborators". Per WP:NPOV and WP:OR we go with what the sources say. That Jacobin article (per WP:HEADLINES, in the body of the article), refers to them as monuments to nazi collaborators. Tristario (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The bust is a monument to a nazi collaborator. The other two are, I think, undeniably monuments to a SS division. People keep implying that is debatable somehow, but nobody has denied the SS are Nazis, so please tell me which part of this you are doubting. CT55555 (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with both of them. Calling the SS Nazis is not original research. Stating something uncomfortable for many is not biased. I can't force you to answer the question, but the lack of answer does speak for itself. CT55555 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Almost all the sources call these monuments to nazi collaborators (or similar). I'm not an expert on this topic, I don't personally what the best wording is. This source, by the way, also quotes a historian who specifically contests the "nazi" label. I just follow wikipedia policy Tristario (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The source you linked to clearly debunks the claim that they were Nazis. Please find a more suitable title for this list. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"List of monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada"? Or merge to Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany, if someone can make a good argument for it Tristario (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither of them. Call the WWII monuments instead of Nazi monuments. Or just delete -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 10:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 I don’t think so. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I can’t take credit for the idea. It’s of My very best wishes. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 My very best wishes doesn’t want to delete it. You do. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought you rejected both options. Did you only reject the second one? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t reject anything. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Was I don’t think so related just to deleting or also to calling them WWII monuments? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Both. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? The titles of Wikipedia articles shouldn’t push a POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Move request

The lead sentence says that Canada has multiple monuments to members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Please change the title of the article, as it’s current one is inaccurate and is pushing a POV. Move it to list of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Or just delete it. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 11:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please delete the redirect as it goes against NPOV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced the contents of both redirects with Template:delete as having such redirects is against NPOV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally move the page when this is already being discussed and is clearly controversial, then inappropriately add a speedy deletion tag with no reason given, then create a new discussion for a move request. This is clearly disruptive and you are already well aware of discretionary sanctions and have been warned, including regarding THIS article. Mellk (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s not disruptive. This article is about monuments of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, NOT about Nazi monuments. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada is inaccurate. The Waffen SS Galicia Division was not part of the UPA, it was a SS division. Shukhevych also served Nazi Germany before 1943. This is not pushing a POV, this is factual. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The monuments are for those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine. And some vandals called them Nazi monuments. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Who happened to be Nazi collaborators? What is your point? Mellk (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That the old title is pushing a POV, and such a redirect should not exist. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, you got the order wrong. I moved after creating the request. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You do not make a move request and then IMMEDIATELY move the page. Mellk (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the move, and it makes no sense. This article is not a list of UIA monuments, and the first one is simply a monument to the SS. This should be reverted, but I cannot. Any suggestions? CT55555 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this obviously controversial page move should have been properly proposed and discussed: see WP:PCM. Storchy (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The monument is for those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine. Please stop pushing a POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 13:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop edit-warring and bad-faith page moves, as you've already been advised at your talk page, or you're on the fast track to getting blocked by an administrator. Storchy (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Somebody here took the humorous essay Wp:Assume bad faith seriously. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I started this article. The reliable sources are clear. We don't need to be a detective to see who is pushing a point of view. And I am almost sympathetic to it, I think I understand your motivations. But we must call things what the reliable sources call them. The idea that this article is all about UIA monuments is not correct. I started it. It is all about monuments to Nazis. CT55555 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But calling them Nazi monuments is much less accurate. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean Nazi monuments? (maybe slow down a little?) That is what the reliable sources say. They are SS/Nazi monuments. That is what this article is about. CT55555 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the monuments say “to those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine”. What’s your point? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read what has already been said about that above. I'll copy and paste the relevant parts: "in Wikipedia whereby we focus on what independent sources say about things, not what primary sources say themselves. People who do bad things tend to write about them through a less-than-idependent lens. This is a basic concept of this project that we favour secondary sources." CT55555 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This article mentions all 3. [7] Mellk (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits like this do not inspire confidence. Mellk (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done As the other editors on this page have indicated, moves should be done after forming consensus, not to preempt it. Determining a suitable title for sensitive topics such as this can be tricky, but that means that care and patience is even more important. There is no deadline. Happy‑melon 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Portals

@CT55555 - Currently, the info box displays the German Portal only. You might consider adding Portals: Canada, Ukraine and Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think if I did that, it would change it for all pages where this infobox appears, and I think that would be unhelpful because it's probably used on pages with no connection to Canada, Ukraine, Poland? But I'm not sure. What do you think? CT55555 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a notable issue for all of these portals. But you can wait a day or two, maybe somebody else will comment on that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Petition

@CT55555 - There was a petition endorsed by a multiple notable Canadian organization to remove those monuments. I’m not sure if that’s okay to mention in the main space since it would promote that petition. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you should only add reference to it if the petition is noted in news or something like that. CT55555 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay... by the way, is this a WP:RS? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor in chief is a journalism student...I would favour other sources. CT55555 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I thought.- GizzyCatBella🍁 00:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

We've not reached consensus and I don't think we are going to. I've started the dispute resolution process, in the hope to resolve this. This is my first time using this process, so I hope I do the notifications and process correctly, please forgive any misteps.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada CT55555 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It was closed as being the wrong forum.

As per @Robert McClenon the closer:

1. If someone wants to delete this, WP:AFD is probably the logical step (also can get consensus to merge)
2. If someone wants to change the title (i.e. move it) then start something at WP:RM

I favour the status quo, so won't start either. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. As an Articles for Deletion (AFD) process is ongoing, the requested move (RM) shall be closed. If the article is kept after AFD, and the page still needs to be moved, feel free to reopen this RM or start a new RM with the contents here included. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

---

List of Nazi monuments in Canada → List of WWII monuments in Canada – The current title of the article is pushing a POV. I suggest to move it to List of WWII monuments in Canada, and add also other WWII-related monuments to the list. Still, calling them “Nazi monuments” is a POV. 🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Because Canadian_war_memorials#First_and_Second_World_Wars exists already. This a very specific sub set of war memorials in Canada that commemorate Nazis (i.e. one particular branch of the SS) and Nazi collaborators (i.e. Roman Shukhevych). This is not a list of WWII memorials, that would be a much longer list. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If so then merge. Also the fact that Wikipedia doesn’t have voting templates like Wikibook or meta is beyond annoying. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555:, could you please close this move request? I will submit a merge one instead. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

On a second thought I will keep this open in case someone comes up with a better title. I repeat that the current one is unacceptable. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:AFD is the venue that could produce a merge outcome. I will argue against it, but I see you want to delete this and I see you want to merge this, and that is the place to start a discussion that could produce either of those outcomes. In some ways, it's a better process than this because lots of people will see it. CT55555 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555:, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. If this page will be kept (it might be merged or deleted), I would suggest renaming it to Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada based on description in a scholarly book on this subject used as a reference on the page [8]. That would allow a neutral description of controversies related to such memorials on the page. Why this needs renaming? Once again, by using such descriptive title (we agreed, this is not a "common name"), i.e. "Nazi monuments", we assert in WP voice that the monuments are in fact all about Nazi, while this is a matter of controversy, according to essentially all sources. A number of people and the Catholic Church saying this is not the case, while others vandalize the memorials to prove their point about "Nazi". Such renaming would not negatively affect notability of the page (but rather improve it) because the coverage of the subject in RS would be wider. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, if I saw this comment before submitting the AFD, maybe I would not have submitted it. I won’t retract it for now, however if we can keep the list but stop calling the monuments Nazis that would be possibly preferable. However, I’m not sure if a list with only 3 items is worth keeping. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So, what would you recommend calling a monument dedicated to Nazi collaborators? Michael60634 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Of all solutions proposed so far that respect the opposing views, I consider this the best one. I think it's too neutral, i.e. kinda avoids the real issue, but in the spirit of compromise and collaboration, I don't reject it. Let's say I'm on the fence on that one and keen to see what others say. Thanks for continuing to work at this, despite our disagreements. CT55555 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted, for the reasons I put in the deletion discussion. I don't think this title is optimal either (It seems a bit overly broad), but I could accept it maybe, there's an argument for it given the diversity of ways these monuments are referred to in sources. Tristario (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - This article does not present a POV. What it does do is list monuments dedicated to members of the Galicia Division, which was a division of the Waffen-SS of Nazi Germany. Therefore, the title and content of the article are accurate. Michael60634 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose This discussion should wait until the AfD has concluded. 162 etc. (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

New name, new discussion, hopefully short.

I propose renaming to something along the lines of "List of monuments in Canada dedicated to Ukraine Independence", then split into relevant section, thoughts? User:Mellk comments need to be viewed with a very large pinch of salt. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7978:741F:E0A5:2787 (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor added two more monuments, so it's not all about Ukrainian monuments anymore. CT55555(talk) 12:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the National Post on the original story, that on October 14 2017 the Russian embassy tweeted about the Edmonton bust and the Oakville monument, and specifically targeted Jewish organizations in Canada. The response of a B'nai Brith person at the time was "Clearly, if there actually are monuments to Nazis in Canada we would be quite concerned about that ... The Russian government sometimes uses the word ‘Nazi,’ especially in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, with somewhat broader meaning than other groups would use it." and went on to suggest that the tweets might be there to "take shots at the Ukrainian community in Canada."

As for Saint Michael's Cemetery -- WP:OR warning since I used to live across the street and have attended at interments there though I never noticed the cenotaph -- it is mostly for Ukrainian Catholics but I understand that nowadays all are welcome, the associating of the cemetery as a whole with Nazis is the sort of thing I could imagine in Jacobin not Wikipedia. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this article is associating of the cemetery as a whole with Nazis. As the person who started it, I certainly don't intend to do so, the sources are silent on that, we're just talking about the memorial, as far as I'm concerned. CT55555(talk) 15:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right User:Peter Gulutzan, the section headings implied that whole cemeteries were involved. I hope I've fixed that now. Storchy (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a very helpful edit, and I'm very happy that we made that clearer. Pinging User:My very best wishes as this reminds me about comments they made, that confused me at the time, but maybe this is what they were concerned about. CT55555(talk) 16:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

All appear to be, to some degree "Freedom fighters", list of monument to foreign freedom fighter in canukland, more apt, can still add in the Nazi collaboration as part of description, ensuring it is balanced?2404:4408:638C:5E00:A9A1:CA01:7116:CB3D (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Context tag or pointer

I came to this article only because of the AFD now under discussion. In my opinion, and it's just that, the article is a good article, with a questionable title, that lacks context for someone unfamiliar with the history in question. I would suggest folks consider a context tag pointing to History of Ukraine WWII section or another pointer of some kind.

It is important to know "Why" the monuments were erected in the first place..

Context;

"Some Ukrainians initially regarded the Wehrmacht soldiers as liberators from Soviet rule, while others formed a partisan movement. Some elements of the Ukrainian nationalist underground formed a Ukrainian Insurgent Army that fought both Soviet forces and the Nazis. Others collaborated with the Germans."

Or widen the article to include all Ukrainian Monuments in Canada and rename. which seems to have occurred.

Thanks for considering this suggestion. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Would that be one of the ugly looking tags that makes the article look flawed, or more like how disambiguation links appear? Can you show an example of a page with a tag like this? CT55555(talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Pétain? Mihailović?

I don't like these additions. First, a mountain isn't a monument. Second, it was named after a WWI hero, not a Nazi collaborator. In fact, the collaboration of Pétain and Mihailović is so different in kind from a Waffen-SS guy that they just don't belong on the same page. For most of the war, Mihailović was supported by the Allies and was an official representative of the Yugoslav government. In any case, the page needs a new title since "Nazi monument" is seriously ambiguous. Perhaps a new title could be crafted to include Mihailović, but it seems to me it is the Ukrainian angle that has generated attention. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The mountain was in the article at the start, but some edited it out, I didn't really agree, but chose my battles. I think it should be included, and we could tweak the title to find a word that encapsulates what ever we call it when someone has a mountain named after them. CT55555(talk) 21:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sister article: Monuments to Nazi collaborators in the United States

To the very editors who have worked to improve this article, please note I started this one too and so I'm mentioning here in case anyone wants to improve it also. Note that the sources for this article did call the subject monuments to nazi collaborators, so (like I did with this article) I went with what the reliable sources said. CT55555(talk) 21:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved the article to Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators to avoid the ambiguity of whether the collaborators were in the US, or the monuments. Since you've included street names, the title should probably also include "and memorials", since a street name is not a monument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've struggled with "monuments" I wish there was a word that covered monuments, mountains and street signs. "Things that commemorate..."? Seems kinda weird. Your change is an improvement, so thanks for that. CT55555(talk) 22:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If this article is kept (depending on what it's decided the focus of the article is), I think "and memorials" should be added to the title of this article too Tristario (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Commemorations in the US/Canada to sometime Nazi collaborators, sections memorials, hills, roads etc, not 100% happy with that, but closer2404:4408:638C:5E00:3071:AA30:169C:900F (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Waffen-SS were not "sometimes Nazi collaborators", when they existed, they were full-time Nazi collaborators, if that's the direction this is going. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

But Pétain had never been a Nazi collaborator when the mountain was named after him. And Mihailovic never directly collaborated and had official Allied support for most of the war. I'll defer to Peacemaker67 regarding the reasonableness of lumping in Mihailovic with the Waffen-SS, but the Pétain thing is just silly. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

They were (mainly) full-time freedom fighters, i.e. against the USSR regime for Ukrainian freedom, there was little knowledge of the Nazi label and the crimes of that regime, and any subsequent rulings and categorisation, although I take your point, and note your keen opposition. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Order of sections

@Storchy (or anyone else) I like that you did with the division by nationality. Should we make the order of the nations alphabetical, otherwise raises the question of which nation gets presented first and why. I'm also happy that this is no longer about Nazis and Nazi collaborators from just one country. CT55555(talk) 13:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Yes, we should probably order the nation sections alphabetically. Storchy (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly done. Storchy (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Initial Page Move

Does anyone object to moving the page to "Monuments and memorials in Canada to Nazi collaborators"? I notice in the delete discussion there doesn't seem to be much objection to this name at least as an improvement over the current name. Further moves can possibly be done and proposed after this, but this can be a first step Tristario (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss and reach consensus, rather than make any hasty moves. CT55555(talk) 04:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And the name you suggest does't work, as the moments include monuments to the Waffen-SS, who are not Nazi collaborators, but Nazis. CT55555(talk) 04:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 and @Tristario - This, sister page Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators talks about the Nazi Nachtigall Battalion and Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 composed of volunteer Ukrainians. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Nazi-affiliated monuments in Canada ? GizzyCatBella🍁 05:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Nazi-affiliated monuments and memorials in Canada? (include memorials, move away from list)? I prefer status quo, but see various requests to change, so maybe a good compromise? CT55555(talk) 05:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would support this over the current name at least. It's an improvement Tristario (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m okay withe the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I support it over the current name. I would prefer to keep "list" though Tristario (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Nazi-affiliated monuments and memorials in Canada then? CT55555(talk) 05:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with this Tristario (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 Drop the list'’ maybe - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But both work for me. Up to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it being a list, it seems @GizzyCatBella prefers not list, @Tristario prefers list. I am neutral. I think this is good moment to pause, see what others say. There were lots of opinions at AfD ad I suspect a day or few will give others a chance to comment. CT55555(talk) 06:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it is an attack on the English language. People and organizations can be "affiliated". Monuments can't be. Look in a dictionary. Inanimate objects could be "associated" with something but they can't be "affiliated" with anything. As a separate issue, a mountain is neither a monument nor a memorial; decide what the page is actually about before choosing a name for it. Zero^talk 07:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to match some mainstream definitions https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/affiliated CT55555(talk) 12:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That definition and its examples agree with what I said: "People and organizations can be 'affiliated'." Zero^talk 12:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's saying that monuments are to people or groups who are affiliated with the Nazis. People and groups can be affiliated with Nazis. That said, I'm open to any better suggestions you have. CT55555(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

However Nazi-associated doesn't work either as association can be negative as well as positive. I assume you don't want Holocaust memorials here. Zero^talk 07:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We can put a definition in the article to avoid the unlikely scenario whereby someone genuinely is confused by this. CT55555(talk) 13:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Can you propose a title? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Memorials in Canada to Nazi collaborators. No need for the "list" in the article name since this page serves as the main page for the topic, discussing both the controversy and providing the related list. "Memorials" only, since "memorial" encompasses monuments. Lastly, the late recruits into the Waffen-SS (post 1943) were largely not committed National Socialists, but an expedience, since Nazi Germany was running out of manpower. So "collaborators" would be my preferred term in the article name. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  The trouble with this is that the Waffen-SS are so clearly defined as Nazis, both in the general sense and in reliable sources that are used in this article. I think the political philosophy and motivations of members (late joiners or otherwise) isn't the key thing here. Nazis who are not really into aspects of Nazism are still Nazis, not Nazi collaborators. Dropping "list" and using "memorials" I am neutral on. To use an analogy, my slightly racist uncle is still "racist", not a "racist-collaborator". "Collaborator" does not mean "just a little bit". CT55555(talk) 18:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  late recruits into the Waffen-SS (post 1943) were largely not committed National Socialists

  *@K.e.coffman do you have a source for that? After the war the SS as a whole was held to be a criminal organisation by the post-war German government. During the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was declared a criminal organisation for its major involvement in war crimes and for being an "integral part" of the SS. An exception was made for conscripts who were not given a choice in joining the ranks, and had not committed "such crimes". They were determined to be exempt. As far as I know, 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) formation was made up predominantly of military volunteers with a Ukrainian ethnic background from the area of Galicia. -

  GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see that I've ignored to mention Roman Shukhevych, whose memorial is also included in the article and about whom CT55555 wrote at the AfD: One of these is a monument to Roman Shukhevych, his collaboration with Nazis is well document on his page. I feel that we should use the lower denominator ("collaborator"), not the higher one ("Nazi"). --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  I support Memorials in Canada to Nazi collaborators as an improvement. I still think Pétain must go and Mihailovic is questionable. Srnec (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm also fine with this name. I would also accept "Memorials in Canada to Nazi collaborators and Nazis" as a suboptimal improvement, and the scope of this page could also include more definite nazis (should any such memorials be identified). I think it can be argued for various reasons that all the entries on this page are questionable in some way or another, but it is true that these are or were all memorials (in the broader sense of the word, something that commemorates, per merriam-webster) to people that collaborated with the Nazis Tristario (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Through the lens of trying to find consensus where we differ, Memorials in Canada to Nazi collaborators and Nazis seems like the best solution so far. @Beyond My Ken had good contributions in earlier discussion, so adding a ping here. CT55555(talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  @CT55555 Memorials to Nazis and Nazi collaborators in Canada - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm agreeable CT55555(talk) 00:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with that is it might make it sound like the collaboration was done in Canada. And this page is also mainly about Nazi collaborators, so I'd prefer that to go first. But it's still an improvement over the current title and I could accept it Tristario (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Can we use commas in titles?

  Memorials, to Nazis and Nazi collaborators, in Canada = the memorials are in Canada

  Memorials to Nazis and Nazi collaborators in Canada = possibly confusing

  That said, how bad is the risk when the contents of the article would clearly clarify?

  I don't care which goes first, but above seems more natural. CT55555(talk) 00:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Nazis and Nazi collaborators" implies two types. There aren't. There are no Nazi party members on this page. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  The 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) were Waffen-SS who are the combat branch of the Nazi Party. Check out Waffen-SS CT55555(talk) 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  From Waffen-SS: ...and after the Operation Barbarossa invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Nazi propaganda claimed that the war was a "European crusade against Bolshevism"and subsequently units consisting largely or solely of foreign volunteers and conscripts were also raised. and from 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician): "Although the Waffen-SS as a whole was declared to be a criminal organization at the Nuremberg Trials, the Galizien Division has not specifically been found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission. However, numerous accusations of impropriety have been leveled at the division, and at particular members of the division, from a variety of sources. It is difficult to determine the extent of war criminality among members of the division." I think you're trying to oversimplify this aspect. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 04:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't write that they were criminals. I wrote that they were Nazis. CT55555(talk) 04:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Which is an oversimplification. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Articles need reasonably simple titles. Titles need to be accurate. If the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) are not Nazis, then a whole bunch of reliable sources must be wrong and you could make this much easier by linking to a reliable source that states they are not Nazis. Right now it seems like there are arguments that they are less criminal Nazis than other Nazis, or partly accidental Nazis, or Nazis who didn't share the political philosophies of the majority of Nazis. That said, while the article to them seems badly sourced it does include references to massacres, killing of Polish people and Jewish people so that seems like the hallmarks of Nazism to me. CT55555(talk) 05:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable source that quotes historian that contests the nazi label. Scholarly source which does not treat them as nazis but treats it as collaboration Tristario (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ottawa Citizen daily - Graffiti on monument commemorating Nazi SS division being investigated as a hate crime by police. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  @GhostOfDanGurney The information that is white-washing 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) (not specifically been found guilty of any war crimes) is incorrect see Chodaczków Wielki massacre, Huta Pieniacka massacre or Pidkamin massacre for example - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  As we read in the article: "The Division SS "Galizien" was commanded by German, Austrian and Ukrainian officers", and several ethnic massacres are reported. I think classifying them as 'Nazis' or 'Nazi collaborators' is sufficient. In this case, it is correct to report them in this article. Mhorg (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators. Consensus developed around the proposed title, Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators during the course of the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

---

List of Nazi monuments in Canada → ? – I am opening an RM here to make the discussion above more visible and to reach community consensus. The AfD from last week showed that a significant number of editors think that the current title is inappropriate. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the sixth move/merge/rename request in about 10 days, so I hope everyone reads what's already been said above. CT55555(talk) 05:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors who prefer to comment here please first read what's already been said above GizzyCatBella🍁 06:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to, and considered myself, to place the RM notice above the discussion. The notes for this template do say This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 06:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Moving and renaming chats on this page:

1. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#Title
2. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#Merge
3. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#Move_request
4. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#Requested_move_23_November_2022
5. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#New_name,_new_discussion,_hopefully_short.
6. Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada#Initial_Page_Move

The number of times people start new proposals when they maybe didn't like how the current one was going is getting a bit out of hand. CT55555(talk) 06:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, the only one of those which was actually a proper Requested Move was done while the AfD was going on and was (properly) procedurally closed. The others are not RMs, so wouldn't be as visible as they wouldn't appear in the "current discussions subpage". - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 07:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. CT55555(talk) 07:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe instead of just telling people to read above, it would be useful to encapsulate the competing proposals here. Walrasiad (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  My summary (I started the article, I argued for the status quo) There are a few non controversial points of disagreement here, should the article:

  1. Be a list of not a list
  2. Say Monuments or Memorials or Monuments and Memorials
  3. Some details about differentiating between monuments to people in Canada or monuments that to people outside Canada and where the monument is in Canada
  4. If a hill and or street signs should be included

  There is a more controversial argument if some French and Serbian people should be included

  The main point of division, that seems unresolved, is if we should say Monuments to Nazis or to Nazi collaborators or to Nazis and Nazi Collaborators with the later being a later suggestion that appears to have broadest consensus.

  There are strong views that the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) are Nazis with reliable sources saying so and it seeing to be logical to say they are Waffen-SS who are Nazis.

  On the other hand, there strong views that not all reliable sources support this, not that any say they are not Nazis, just that some don't use the term. Some have pointed out motivations of individuals to join the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) were about protecting Ukraine from Russia, not about the elements of the Nazis that tend to spring to mind in 2022, and others have pointed out the role that 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) had in massacres and violence against Jews and Polish people. Those points have been met with accusations of oversimplification by my side of the argument.

  I favour the status quo. Clearly many want some change. Memorials to Nazis and Nazi collaborators in Canada appears to be the path that both sides agree on the most, in my opinion and someone very involved. CT55555(talk) 00:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds accurate - 👍 GizzyCatBella🍁 00:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't it be "Canadian memorials to" or "Memorials in Canada to"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators is fine by me. CT55555(talk) 01:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  👍 with me too. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not Canadian memorials - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Memorials in Canada to ..." seems good, and parallels with the similarly titled Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose "Nazis and Nazi collaborators". Just the latter. I am okay with "memorials", but "monuments" works as well provided we drop the silly mountain. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I support "Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators" as an improvement, but only as that. This article has growing problems and I'm beginning to regret my keep !vote in the AFD. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - there are a few proposals being bandied about, but nothing like clear consensus here. If we don't have consensus on any of the aspects of the move, then the page will be left as is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  While there is not a clear consensus, there appears to be more support for Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators than there is for the status quo. Even though I personally prefer the status quo, I consider such a change to have more support than the status quo. Would anyone dispute that? CT55555(talk) 18:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've now added a memorial to someone who commanded Nazi German forces in WWII. I don't know whether he was a member of the Nazi Party, but it could be considered reasonable to characterize him as a nazi. Perhaps, this can mean that a consensus for the name "Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators" can be reached. In terms of policy based arguments, I think that would meet the criteria for article titles at WP:CRITERIA quite well - it's natural, recognizable, fairly precise, and concise. I oppose the name "Nazi monuments in Canada" because I don't think it follows WP:NPOV (the reasons for this have been much discussed above), and I also think it fails the criteria at WP:CRITERIA because it's very imprecise - Is it saying the people that built the monuments are nazis? The people that maintain the monuments are nazis? The monuments espouse nazi ideology? and so on. I'm open to any reasonable arguments or suggestions, but this, I think, is probably the title that best captures the purpose of this article. --Tristario (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Concur – "Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators" (roughly as I said before). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agree – "Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators" sounds about right with this change. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

References to Pétain should be removed from article

I see no reason to include anything about Pétain in this article. Things were named after him in the aftermath of World War I and have nothing to do with his actions more than 20 years later. Keeping him in this article implies that monuments to him are “Nazi monuments” which is obviously not the case. Thriley (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If the monuments were dedicated to Petain after WWI, then I agree they should not be listed here, as he was not a Nazi collaborator at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and moreover calling mountains and streets "monuments" is highly dubious. Zero^talk 01:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was touched on above. "Monuments and memorials" would probably be better, as it would cover mountains, streets, and other physical things named in memory of those involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a mountain or a street is a "memorial" either. A plaque attached to a mountain would be. But anyway since as far as I know all things named for Pétain that have been mentioned were so-named in the WWI time period none of them belong. Zero^talk 04:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it takes a plaque to make something a memorial. The intention to memorialize is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree, and I think we're not alone. I had a look around and while most memorials listed on Wikipedia are man-made things List of national memorials of the United States includes Coronado National Memorial CT55555(talk) 05:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree Petain should not be listed here - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear, if there was in Canada a monument or memorial to Petain which was instituted after WWII, after Petain was known to have been a Nazi collaborator, then such a monument or memorial would be legitimate to list here, but that is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think various arguments can be made that various entries don't fit on this page. However, it was still a memorial (per merriam-webster, in the broader sense that it is something that commemorates something) that commemorated someone who collaborated with the nazis. The fact that it was not intended to commemorate a nazi collaborator is not really relevant (you could advance similar arguments for the other entries on this page), and the inclusion of a memorial on this page isn't making a statement about what the purpose of the memorial was, simply that it was something that commemorated a nazi collaborator Tristario (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "Memorials to Nazis and Nazi collaborators" imputes a motive for the memorial, not just a historical coincidence. Zero^talk 04:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If we interpret the title as imputing motive, then we need to delete all the entries on this page, because the motive for all these memorials is unclear. Either way, the name of the mountain was kept even after he was a nazi collaborator. Tristario (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

None of that is true afaik. It is motive+timing, not just motive. If someone put up a monument now for Petain it should be included even if the monument builders did it because he made the trains run on time. When the mountain was named there was a good reason for it and no reason against it. Also, "the name of the mountain was kept" implies that a request to remove the name was officially denied. Actually, from what I read it was just a matter of bureaucracy moving even slower than usual due to two states being involved. The same slow bureaucracy is why there is no new name yet. Zero^talk 12:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't saying there was a official denial of a request, I was simply saying they kept the name, for whatever reason. Perhaps it was bureaucracy which prevented them from changing the name for the 80 years after he became a nazi collaborator before the name was removed. Either way, we are not making a comment on whether it was kept because of bureaucracy or not, we are just saying it was a memorial to a nazi collaborator, which is true Tristario (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I started this page. I did not intend to imply anything beyond what it is, so we can all imagine what is implied, but let's just stick to what it is and not imagine beyond that. CT55555(talk) 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree as well. It seems as thought the section was removed without consensus. I think the article can specify that the monument was dedicated before he became a collaborator, but the fact that a monument to a Nazi collaborator exists is still relevant. A statue of Leopold II existed prior to his brutal rule of the Congo Basin and genocide of its peoples, but as it is a statue of a man who harmed many others, it was removed by Belgian authorities. The continued existence of a monument (even street name) celebrating a Nazi collaborator is highly relevant to a reader. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Split suggestion

• Oppose, due to lack of justification to split. If it's not broken, no need to fix it.

CT55555(talk) 02:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 The editor who placed the template needs to explain here first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. There was an equally confusing lack of justification for a similar edit here Roman Shukhevych statue CT55555(talk) 06:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

POV

Whether out of utter carelessness or what, this article still reads like a hit piece.

It implies members of Division Galicia were Nazis, while they were not eligible for Nazi party membership because of their background. It implies that its members were declared guilty of crimes at the Nuremberg trials, when that is false. In fact no evidence of war crimes by the division was presented at Nuremberg, nor discovered by the Canadian government, the Deschênes Commission, nor the Canadian Jewish Congress (according to the article 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)).

“Waffen-SS” is peppered throughout, implying that Roman Shukhevych and the UPA were members of the Waffen-SS and found guilty at Nuremberg.

What exactly is the section “Memorial at St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery, Oakville” about? Is it a monument to the UPA or to the Galicia Division? Why are there two monuments pictured and which is the subject?

I’ve topped the article with a POV tag until it someone cleans up problems such as these, with supporting references. —Michael Z. 22:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac Why don’t you clean up problems? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella WP:VOLUNTEER.  —Michael Z. 03:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Collaboration here should be much easier/more productive now; GCB was blocked as a sock by ArbCom the other day. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's important to describe this issue following the rules of WP:NPOV. I have yet to read the book by Sol Litman on the issue, however, he contends that the 1st Galician did commit atrocities. And the Deschênes Commission is certainly controversial, meaning other points of view should be presented. Following WP:NPOVTITLE, as members of the SS, they are Nazi collaborators and were considered criminals at Nuremberg. Even if not a neutral name, following WP:NPOVNAME, their collaboration with the Nazi regime as members of the SS (as opposed to Wehrmacht) makes it appropriate to call the unit Nazi collaborators. I firmly believe the article follows these standards and should not be changed. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Draža Mihailović monument

The fact that Draža Mihailović is listed here doesn't sit well with me and it seems to be based on an opinion piece by one Lev Golinkin. Mihailović was legally rehabilitated in 2015 and has widely been celebrated as an anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. – PidgeCopetti (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the article about him includes other citations that seem to support this. For example: https://web.archive.org/web/20120303145017/http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=3026&reportid=169

Is it accurate to say that at some point, he was a Nazi collaborator? CT55555(talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

While some Chetniks did collaborate with the Germans, Draža Mihailović did not. PidgeCopetti (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"widely been celebrated as an anti-fascist and anti-Nazi" seems like a bit of a stretch. This needs to be handled in an RfC; no doubt you've seen the edit warring. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Simon Wiesenthal center has never condemned Mihailovic (the way they have Shukhevych or Bandera) and B'nai Brith Canada has never called for the removal of his statue, like they did with the Ukrainian monuments. For this reason alone we should consider removing this section. Does anybody object? 206.188.81.118 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removal. (Also highlights issue with relying too much on Golenkin as a source.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Sources are very clear that Mihajlović was Nazi collaborator. The corresponding article (Draža Mihailović) discusses hi collaboration at length. The fact that some people celebrate him as "anti-nazi" does not mean anything. People celebrate lot of different things. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed

"These monuments are controversial, with leaders of the Canadian Ukrainian community rejecting the links to the Nazi regime."

Is there a citation for the same, or any survey with what share Ukrainian-Canadians reject their links to the Nazi regime and its collaborators? Ukrainian-Canadian leaders such as Chrystia Freeland have not dissociated these monuments from the community in any way. 24.239.134.31 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

per WP:LEDE that wasn't really supported by the body of the article, so I removed that part. Thanks for pointing that out Tristario (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)