Talk:Stepan Bandera

Linking in infobox

Hi, I disagree with this reversal and, TBH, see nothing wrong with my version. I mean, 1) I think we should leave "Austria-Hungary" unlinked in the infobox, given MOS:GEOLINK (which clearly states, "For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit"; and advises us to "space the links out when feasible" if a location's largest unit isn't an extant place) and that we do link it in both the lead and the "early life and education" section 2) I personally think it's OK to link "Ukraine" in the infobox, given that the country isn't as well visited as Russia or Poland and that it isn't part of "a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units". Pinging @Shoshin000, who made the reversal. Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

With all respect this is pure pedantry. What even is the point of your edit? What do you aim to accomplish?

My reasoning is that while everyone who knows about Bandera has heard of Ukraine, not everyone might now part of it was in Austria-Hungary. Historical countries are usually linked on Wikipedia, modern ones not always. Shoshin000 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but GEOLINK should be respected, and I, TBH, don't see a compelling reason to make Bandera an exception. However, given this RfC, I'm also fine with |birth_place=Staryi Uhryniv, then in Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine). Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but GEOLINK should be respected

I beg to differ. A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed. I do not the point of tweaking on this. To me, post-Soviet Ukraine is not relevant in the infobox, as he died 30+ years before its establishment. All I wanted was Austria-Hungary to be linked, for the reasons explained before. --Shoshin000 (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've just informed WP:3O. Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: I think Thedarkknightli's second version (|birth_place=Staryi Uhryniv, then in Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)) would be a reasonable compromise, but I really don't see a big problem with Shoshin000's first version; they are correct that it would helpful for the average reader who had barely heard of Austria-Hungary. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 16:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @Shoshin000 and @Leaf.Sheap, any objections if I restore the link to "Ukraine" in infobox? Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 16:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of "Legacy" section in the lead

I assume that the last paragraph in the lead represents the summary of the "Legacy" section? If so, this should be summarized better. For example, the lead does not summarize anything from Stepan_Bandera#Commemoration subsection. The content also should be updated because the public opinion about him in Ukraine has significantly changed due to the war with Russia (e.g. ). The sources and opinion from 2014 are not very much relevant right now. Actually, this is already updated in the corresponding subsection of the page , but not in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the general regional tendencies remain proportionally similar (more positive in the West than in the Russian-speaking regions), so it can be left as is unless you find a source confirming such a regional gradient change. One additional sentence in there saying he is viewed more positively since 2022 should be good Shoshin000 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

One should check most recent sources because Ukraine is a very different country right now. A lot of Russian-speaking people on the East and South were very much "pro-Russian" which includes their attitude to "Bandera" by default. Right now these territories are occupied, cities raze to the ground, people are killed or relocated. But my point is different: this needs to be just a summary of the section. I can place the suggested text here, maybe in a week or two from now. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact, we do not know what the people on the occupied territories think. We can only cite the most recent sources (linked above): "Positive perception of Bandera increased to 74% in December 2022, up from 36% in 2018. That same year, Bandera entered Ukraine’s top five most admired figures, and the UPA increased in popularity from 47% in 2019 to 81% in 2022." (see also the graph in this source ). My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Done.

Do you find it readable enough in 4 paragraphs, or should we WP:IGNOREALLRULES and make it 5?

I didn't find the primary source for 2018 however. Shoshin000 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Still there is an issue I think. Second long phrase in the last paragraph of the lead ("Many Ukrainians, particularly in the Western regions...") suppose to be summary of some section. But it is not. This is an independently written and sourced phrase that possibly belongs to the body of the page, and it also contradicts the ending of the same paragraph in the lead. Is he condemned or popular today in Ukraine? Based on the most recent surveys and sources, it is the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverts

@Chronos.Zx. - what is "due" and for which section? Most of the changes were minor. Do you object to all of them? Most significant was probably removal of content that was not about views by Bandera from the section about his views. If you object about this, then OK, let's place it back, I do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

After checking his "views" section, main issue seems to a highly repetitive content in a couple of paragraphs, with several historians repeating very same claim about views by Bandera over and over again. When that happens, their common claim needs to be summarized one time, and references given to all of them. Would you agree with that? My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I am also not sure why did you make this revert: . One needs to explain why most of the Ukrainians admire Bandera and the linked DW source explains it. According to Andreas Umland, "it is about remembering that Bandera was a radical fighter for independence who served time in a Polish prison and a German concentration camp and was murdered by the KGB, he told DW.". This can be summarized differently, but should be mentioned for clarity. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Since there are no objections here, I am going to restore all minor changes, but do not make this change (I assume this is what caused objections?) in a day or two. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Shoshin000. This edit was explained in edit summary. There is nothing about it in the body of the page, hence there is nothing to summarize in the lead. This is for a good reason. This controversy was not about Bandera. It was Zelenskyy awarding the Ukrainian Special Operations Center North the honorary title Heroes of the UPA. This can be included to the page about UPA, but not about Bandera. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I agree I don't see why that belongs in the lede. Possibly it could be briefly mentioned in the body, but it appears to mostly not be about Bandera Tristario (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize the body of the page. In this regard, two first phrases in the last paragraph of the lead (starting from "Bandera remains a highly controversial figure in Ukraine...") do not properly summarize the content of "Legacy" section. They also contradict last phrase in the same paragraph of the lead. For better or for worse, Bandera is very popular in Ukraine right now because of the Russian invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

If the basis for describing him being popular in Ukraine in the lede is only one poll then that seems quite weak to me, in terms of WP:WEIGHT. You also need to keep WP:RECENTISM in mind Tristario (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that DW and other RS (e.g. ) refer to the same most recent poll. However, most of the 2nd phrase in the last paragraph ("Many Ukrainians, particularly in the Western regions...") are not based on any polls. Therefore, it tells "many", "some", etc. instead of providing numbers. If this is a summary of anything, it should be consistent with Stepan_Bandera#Attitudes_in_Ukraine_towards_Bandera - the 1st paragraph there does provide outdated numbers, and again only for a single poll. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This article is still meant to be a general overview, not an overview of the most recent developments. Before updating that sentence/section I would have a look at what more recent various reliable sources say about this, that section only has a couple of recent sources. I would also not just rely on polling, but rather on what reliable sources say Tristario (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If we talk about public opinion, then we must use polls with numbers. Simply saying that some people like him and others do not is uninformative. Same can be said about many politicians. And if we are talking about current opinion, then we need recent polls. If only a single poll is available, but it was mentioned in multiple RS, then we can use it per WP:NPOV. But again, my main point is to make a summary of the corresponding section. The beginning of the last para in the lead does not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Polling can have various limitations relating to sampling, question wording, interpretation of results etc. This is why we look at what reliable sources say.

And if it's only a single poll with limited coverage then I do not think it is WP:DUE for the lede. But maybe some other kind of summary could be put in the lede. I agree that section in the lede probably could reflect the legacy section better, as well as be better written. Tristario (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

As someone from natural sciences, I do like numbers. I think that the attitudes towards Stepan Bandera in modern Ukraine can be summarized in a single last phrase of the lead, a summary of section Stepan_Bandera#Attitudes_in_Ukraine_towards_Bandera. This is very easy to fix. I can do it, and you are welcome to correct this further. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As of note, this has nothing to do with WP:RECENTISM. Recent polls are used on a lot of pages, and they should be recent. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Tristario that we shouldn't rely on recent polls here. According to this poll, under 50% of Ukrainians view him positively (compared to 74% in the other poll). The regional divide is still evident here, so I do not think it is a good idea to omit this. Mellk (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is just a blog post, without a link to the poll. But if reliably sourced, then yes, this is an additional poll to be used on the page. But again, I am just saying that very long second phrase in the last para of the lead ("Many Ukrainians, particularly...") is simply not a good summary of the corresponding sections of the page, i.e. Stepan_Bandera#Legacy. That's why it needed so many in-line references directly in the lead. This text is sourced and can be easily use in the body of the page, but not in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Best I found was this , and it provides poll numbers similar to ones in your ref. I think it can be cited on the page. But it was 4 years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, I think this phrase is misleading as written. It says: ...whereas other Ukrainians, particularly in the South and East, condemn him as a fascist, or Nazi collaborator.... Well, which percentage of Ukrainians in the South and East condemn him? And when? A reader would think this is current information. According to the source (link above), 30% of the respondents in Odesa and Mykolaiv regions assess his historical role rather negatively and 20% of respondents assess it positively. Saying that Ukrainians in the South and East condemn him as a Nazi collaborator sounds like a misinformation in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the paragraph either but I'm also not sure what the right way to improve it is, and I want to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Maybe that sentence could be separated out into two: The first can cover how Bandera has been controversial in Ukraine (And maybe also other countries like Poland) with opinions varying by region. Then the second sentence could say that he is viewed positively by some because of the hero/liberation fighter perceptions, and negatively by others because of the Nazi collaboration and massacres by followers.

Then at the end of the paragraph there can be a sentence saying that a couple of polls have indicated an increase in positive perception in Ukraine since the invasion in 2022 Tristario (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not "recentism" because any polls before the war are completely irrelevant for the current public opinion about him in Ukraine. We can not say anything about the South and East of Ukraine because this is de facto Russia (only Odessa region really remains on the South). Based on the results of recent polls, he is not a controversial figure but a hero in Ukraine right now. Which might reflect badly on the public image of Ukraine, but such is life. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

These polls do not say "Bandera is not a controversial figure in Ukraine". That is not a claim that they make. Tristario (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

True. All these polls operate with questions like "do you consider his historical role for Ukraine negatively or positively?". Claims like "people [how many?] consider him a fascist/hero" were not included in polls and therefore have no statistical basis. That's why I would remove them at least from the lead. Sure, some people consider him a fascist, and others considers him a hero. But without specific numbers from polls, this provides zero information on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

gonna chime in here and say i think adding the opinion polling in the lede is bizarre and clunky, at least in its current form. it is a single poll, and doesnt represent a scholarly consensus in the slightest. he's not a living politician, just a figure in the ukranian ww2 memory debate. who cares what his polling is? on highly controversial figures like Bandera, i'd prefer to stick to scholarly consensus, or at a bare minimum journalistic commentary.

perhaps some better wording would be "news organizations note that public perception of Bandera has dramatically improved in Ukraine since the Russian invasion, with Bandera increasingly seen as a resistance hero against Russia." isa.p (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

to expand on my point a little more, i think plugging in commentary-less opinion polling on one of the most controversial figures in ukrainian history feels like we're participating in the scholarly memory war, instead of neutrally describing the debate. isa.p (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly agree, which is why I just adjusted the wording of that sentence Tristario (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

My point was entirely different. Long 2nd phrase in the last para ("Many Ukrainians...") is not a proper summary of the corresponding section of the article. This is an independently written text. That's why it needs seven in-line references in the lead. This text might be used in the body of the page, but I think it should not as slightly misleading. A reader would think this is about the current opinion about Bandera in Ukraine, but it is not. And again, while the last phrase in the para is justified by statistical data (3 opinion polls), the 2nd phrase is not. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I've already agreed that paragraph isn't great. I'm not quite sure how to fix it, but I suggested one way to try to improve it above. Tristario (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I also made a change. Also, a summary of section Stepan_Bandera#Commemoration should be added I think. My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not see how this follows the suggestion they made above. The text about regional divide can simply be copied to the body since this is well-sourced.

There is also no longer any mention of his attitude towards Poles/Jews specifically and how his followers were responsible for massacring Poles and participating in the Holocaust, even though there is a section about this. Mellk (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

That would be a summary of another section, i.e. Stepan_Bandera#Views. Yes, this can be summarized and included to the lead, but maybe difficult because some assertions made in the first para are disputed in next four paragraphs. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion wasn't to just remove that content entirely from the lede. Note WP:LEDE says it should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

It is an issue if the lede contains content that is not in the body of the article. But if that content is due and well-sourced then it can be moved to the body of the article Tristario (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2026 (UT

Last paragraph of the lead

Do we agree that the last paragraph of the lead should be a summary of the Legacy section? If so, then this section includes a brief summary already and 6 subsections that should be summarized proportionally to their size. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't object to this and the current lede looks okay. a little bloated, but very acceptable. i might make some CEs later but I'll talk here if I have any content concerns before i make any edits. isa.p (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)