Talk:Yaroslav Hunka scandal

“War criminal”

This article throws around the phrases “war criminal,” “suspected war criminal,” and “alleged war criminal” about the subject. But the subject is not a war criminal, nor an accused, alleged, nor suspected war criminal. This is a violation of WP:BIO.

It also Includes a quotation falsely accusing the subject of being a war criminal, without providing the context that it is false and possibly defamatory. Another violation.  —Michael Z. 06:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "about the subject"? (Not a rhetorical question, please clarify.)—Alalch E. 12:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course the person to whom WP:BLP does apply, not the main subject of this article.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an SS soldier,you are a war criminal! 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:289D:E4A3:2EDA:6CE (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one would volunteer for a group that deliberately mass murders Jewish and Polish people if they didn't hate those people. All SS were volunteers. These weren't ordinary people drafted into war. 203.145.94.239 (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your statement is reasonable. Is the group you are referring to the German Military? The SS? Or the Waffen-SS?
The subject has not been found to be suspected or guilty of any war crimes at this point.
The sources linked on this page do implicate elements of the Waffen-SS in war crimes against Jews (the Waffen-SS police units) and a regiment involved in the significant massacre of Polish civilians.
The subject was not a member of any of the implicated elements of the Waffen-SS.
The blanket ruling that any SS soldier = war criminal was overturned, with a strong argument.
The volunteers that joined the Waffen-SS were Ukraninans in the distinct Waffen-SS goal was fighting for an independent Ukraine, against the USSR states including Russia and Poland.
The listed sources even show that the Waffen-SS even had an altered wording regarding Hitler's role as the leader essentially to help liberate them from the severe rule by the USSR and it's satellite states.
I think a much more realistic and less bigoted assumption based on the sources we have is that Hunka joined the Waffen-SS for the purposes of an indepdent Ukraine.
This is consistent with how he has spent the rest of his life - strong Ukrainian identity in community and in advocacy as well.
The President given him a standing ovation is an interesting and unfortunate error, but to me the glaring blunder is the apology to the Jewish people without anything said for the Poles massacred by members of the Waffen-SS amongst other Ukrainian groups. Simply astounding. Dwardyboy (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SS was declared a criminal organisation at Nuremberg, making any member a potential criminal. This included the Waffen SS, including foreign fighters. And Ukrainian SS men may have THOUGHT they were fighting for an independent Ukraine, but they weren't. They were fighting for Nazi Germany, under the command of Nazi German commanders. Stop whitewashing collaborators. 2A0A:EF40:387:5F01:C07F:7134:EC17:AAEF (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Badge "for Merits to Ternopil Region" (February 6, 2024)

Need to correct the official date of the presented award (Badge "for Merits to Ternopil Region") to February 6, 2024 (not February 1, 2024)[1] Borisenko-ru (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Include Poilievre in the standing ovation

Hunka received two standing ovations from all house members, including Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, other party leaders, and visiting Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Should be revised to say

Hunka received two standing ovations from all house members, including Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, the Leader of the Official Opposition Pierre Poilievre, other party leaders and visiting Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The Leader of the Opposition plays a special role in parliamentary democracy to keep the government accountable, and despite protesting later he did not perform in this role. Gelankin (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Article is very biased to not include the leader of the opposition applauded alongside the PM. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No response to this? Considering contacting a Canadian news outlet to report on this clear politically motivated article not being revised. We have laws against this sort of thing. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This page is locked, and relevant requests to include the fact that the leader of the opposition also gave the Nazi a standing ovation is deplorable. If you're going to highlight that one party leader did it, and not acknowledge the other, you're clearly violating the neutral point of view rule by skewing the facts and making it seem that only one party leader supported this. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is completely against wikipedias policies but keep ignoring me. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing on this, what a clownshow. Unlock the article or make it non partisan. 2605:B100:334:A0E:F9F4:D760:C673:8B26 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear that this page is heavily biased, and that nobody cares to fix it. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What recourse do I need to take to have this corrected? 216.121.182.128 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the complaint here? The lede currently states "two standing ovations from all house members, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, other party leaders, and visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy." Trudeau is mentioned because he was Prime Minister. This is reasonable. "Other party leaders" are mentioned. We don't need to name every person. cagliost (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to name every person, but have failed to name (as the original complaint already says) THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. If you aren't familiar enough with Canadian politics to see why this is an issue, maybe consider looking into it. This article has a clear bias, implicating one political party as the main subject of a controversy that involved the entire house of parliament.
"Other politicians" does not, in any way, indicate that anyone beyond the liberal party applauded a Nazi in the House of Commons. This is very clearly a biased article and should have already been amended before it was used en masse in political propoganda in the most recent Canadian Federal election. This article was widespread and used to convery a narrative that the Conswrvative party did not applaud the Nazi in the House of Commons, when this is an outright falsehood and misrepresentation of the facts. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting the long overdue response to this. Pierre was not categorized as "other party leaders" during this scandal. He was the leader of the opposition. Not including him by name in this article prior to the 2025 Canadian Federal Election was a clear example of the bias this article is locked behind. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This article has a clear bias, implicating one political party as the main subject of a controversy that involved the entire house of parliament." I don't agree. Neither party is mentioned, and the article does not try to make this a party-political issue. The office of Leader of the Opposition is not significant or relevant in this context. I suggest you reflect on your personal political commitments, and see if you have an interest in this case. As someone disinterested in Canadian politics, the article looks fine to me. cagliost (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your response clearly outlines why either both party leaders should be named, or neither. I have zero personal interest in Canadian politics and your implication that I do is unfounded and frankly, ridiculous. To only include one party leader by name and not the others is biased, to claim otherwise is directly opposing to the NPOV rule.
Both or neither - simple as. 2605:B100:119:6B39:201A:F20E:F6B6:A216 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are more than two parties in Canada; other party leaders were present who could be named. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, so more significant than Leader of the Opposition. cagliost (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article makes this a party-political issue. The scandal was personally embarrassing to Anthony Rota, who resigned, but not particularly to Trudeau personally any more than Poilievre. Rather, it was embarrassing to Canada. The Prime Minister is mentioned in his capacity as senior representative of the government of Canada. cagliost (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is outright false. Trudeau, despite no longer being the PM, still receieves backlash for this. Furthermore, he personally got backlash for it when it happened, as did Pierre. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no response to this, it should be changed. WP:Nothing comes to mind. Please ditch your poorly disgused political biases and give a proper reason why this should not be addressed. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK cagliost (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of WP:DROPTHESTICK is ridiculous here. This is a very real issue. 2605:B100:331:B927:5D39:ED39:726A:80E1 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2025

Category:Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany Category:Members of the Galicia Division Howland666666 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if this article should technically be in these categories, because the title is "Yaroslav Hunka scandal", not just "Yaroslav Hunka", and it's about the entire political scandal and not just Hunka himself. However, the article includes a biography of him, and Hunka doesn't have his own article that could be categorised. Thoughts? Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think it's fine to put this article in those categories because Hunka doesn't have his own article that we could categorise.  Done Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on October 24, 2025

Aftermath section/Reactions subsection/fourth paragraph/first sentence has a pretty messy error.

"On 27 September, the interim provost of the University of Alberta announced it would close the Hunka Ukrainian Research Endowment Fund and return its approximately CA$30,000 to Hunka's sons..."

Because "of the University of Alberta" is a prepositional phrase, words before and after it aren't affected by it. Drop the phrase and the sentence says "...the interim provost announced it would..." That's grammatically correct but factually wrong since the word "it" is clearly meant to mean the college but as written it means the person who was the interim provost at that time. Please change it to:

"On 27 September, University of Alberta interim provost and vice president Verna Yiu announced the school would close its Hunka Ukrainian Research Endowment Fund and return its approximately CA$30,000 to Hunka's sons..."

This person's name and that vice president job title are sourced at the first citation at the end of the sentence, a CBC article. Thank you. 2600:382:A764:635D:279F:8B68:99FA:1A96 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yaroslav_Hunka