Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Where Did the Blue Army Disappear To?[edit]

As someone trying to research the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920-21, I’ve been trying to figure out what happened to these formations between the time they arrived in Poland, and the start of that conflict.

As far as I can determine, these units disappear from the order of battle in late 1919 or early 1920. The mystery is why? These units, with their air and armored assets, would have been of the most up-to-date, modern (for the time) type. Given the hodge-podge and improvised nature of the rest of the Polish and Red armies, these units would also have been the most powerful units in Eastern Europe as well. I cannot conceive of a good MILITARY reason why these formations would have been broken up, and their power diluted.

Reasons that have been advanced include 1. Having broken their promise not to use the “Blue Army” in offensive operations, the Poles needed to appease the angry Allied Powers. The “Blue Army” needed to disappear, and was broken up for this reason. The veterans of the Army were salted throughout newly raised formations to provide a stiff backbone for unleavened recruits. 2. The Blue Army was formed in France under the authority of Dombrowski, Pilsudski’s rival. Concerned about the political allegiance of these troops, Pilsudski had the army broken up and salted with native Poles, who were likely to be more favorable to the man who had remained in Poland, (Pilsudski), then to the one living out the war in Paris, (Dombrowski.) 3. The majority of American Poles in the Army decided to go home at the end of the Great War. (The US Congress would eventually appropriate funds for ships to bring these troops home.) This, and the impact of influenza at the end of 1919, left so many holes in the roster of these units, it was thought better to distribute the remaining troops into newly forming units.

I would rather this question be given more importance, in the discussion, as well as more detail of the battles and maneuvers the Blue Army participated in.

I must also add my opinion that the emphasis of the first sentence, and devoting a full quarter of the text to “controversies” and pogroms, makes it seem the most important contribution “Blue Army” was suppression of the Jews, not military defense of Poland. While an important question, I don’t think it should be the major emphasis of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzaib (talkcontribs) 15:23, 8 November 2013

Intro paragraph[edit]

165.234.252.11, this intro text clearly creates undue-weigth (lacking proportionality), and pushes a specific POV which is inherently bias. This text highlighting a secondary issue in the intro paragraph and is problematic given the limited scope of this matter. The Morgenthou report stated that during the 3 years of conflict Jewish casualties only amounted to about 200–300 individuals (this was the result of not just the Blue Army of 68,000 soldiers, but all of Polish forces) — this is minuscule given the fact that thousands of Poles, Ukrainians and Russians died. Why is this so prominently highlighted, because in the past the "consensus" was pushed forward by the same two editors, who decided to make this the central point of the article. Just like with referencing campaigns in the intro paragraph, you don't just mention the Polish-Ukrainian war, but skip the Polish-Bolshevik war, so you don't just highlight Jewish casualties, but skip Polish or Ukrainian casualties. --E-960 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and the consensus was to keep info you don't like, in.Faustian (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This by no means implies that this results is permanent (critique of a text can always be revisited especially if it well over a couple of years), and its the same two editors who push this "consensus" on the article, looking at the history, it clear that you are the author of almost all of the text critical of the Blue Amry, and it the same editor(s) who jumps in to defend your text when it's challenged. Also, there is no hard rule on this — "reverting" after over a week is not really a revert, I can understand reverting an edit revert after 48 to 72 hours, going past that, the person who thinks that old text is valid should perhaps discuss. Also, this does not change the fact that this is undue weight (it really is), and you are simply defending your work, since in this case you are the author most of the text critical, perhaps it time reconsider the old and bias text. --E-960 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This material has been the topic of four RfCs. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - Bias POV in article[edit]

Faustian, I've opened up a noticeboard discussion here [1] to see if we can get other editors to review the text and assess possible neutrality issues, as it is clear that the topic of anti-Jewish violence covers way too much detail and receives exaggerated prominence. Also, since you are the author of all the critical text towards the Blue Army, which creates undue weight by depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement — pls also review the Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources article which clearly highlights a problem in regards to reliable sources may be non-neutral, most of the sources you cite, though reliable, use extremely and bias language, and overstate the phenomenon given that this only relates to 200-300 casualties, in a 3 year conflict, involving 68,000 soldiers, and thousands of Polish and Ukrainian casualties — this is extremely bias. --E-960 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Blue Army's atrocities towards Jewish civilians are covered in depth by RSes in a prominent manner - which we should reflect as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements. --E-960 (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
While it seems some editors find acts of mass murder, in some 100 localities, as insignificant - a multitude of RSes disagree, pointing out that the Blue Army has a "particular reputation for anti-Jewish violence"[2] murder, robbery, and abuse - that led to Paris Peace Conference to dispatch a commision for investigation,[3] of this so called army which "especially earned the reputation as notrious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in ..."[4] - and labelled as the "chief perpetrators of these murders".[5] Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
POV... POV... use of one-sided sources with non-neutral wording — "notorious Jew baiters" is about unacademic as you can get with a description. The Anglo-American Morgenthau Report, and American diplomat Hugh S. Gibson described the events in a very different manner, and specifically addressed the issue of how the events were being exaggerated in the press. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Morgenthau and Gibson are primary sources (nor do they quite add up with your assertion). As for: " "notorious Jew baiters" is about unacademic as you can get with a description" - the source for this statement is history professor/dr. Alexander V. Prusin[6] in book published by The University of Alabama Press on this specific topic. So - we have an editor discounting mass murder vs. academic sources that clearly see this as quite relevant for this organization. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Mass murder? Seriously, this is nothing more than sensationalist language bordering on ridiculous. How many casualties occur in Afghanistan every year as a result of misconduct or collateral damage by the coalition forces? As for Prusin, this historian is over-quoted in the article, which is another issue, also pls read Wikipedias guidelines on sources here Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, which states quote "Reliable sources may be non-neutral", however Wikipedia guidelines do say that the text in the article should be balanced and encyclopedic. Also, nothing wrong with primary sources. --E-960 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, mass murder. Any actual academic secondary sources backing up your assertions these acts of mass murder were "insignificant"? So far your assertion seems to be that 200-300 acts of murdering Jews are "tolerable" and "expected" for a 68,500 strong force. Any sources backing up your claims regarding Prusin? Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Uhmm... mass murder just in reference to one ethnic group but not others? Spread over 3 years of war and conflict, where thousands of Poles and Ukrainians died. Pls, look up how may casualties occurred in Afghanistan from the 60,000+ coalition forces, due to abuse and collateral damage. --E-960 (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Any sources to back up the assertion that the Blue Army's murder of Jews, in mass pogroms, was insignificant? Academic sources specifically on the Blue Army? Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────200-300 (two hundred to three hundred), during the course of the entire war, is not mass murder — again, exaggerated and sensationalist wording. --E-960 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is not exactly about the changes being made to the article. In fact, I don't see any articulation of the supposed issues that are raised in the edit summary ("partisan"? "synth"? - how?) Volunteer Marek 13:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - a notification you were canvassed, would be due. Furthermore, in your revert you reintroduced primary material (e.g. a yearbook from 1920) as well as gross misrepresentation of sources. I suggest you self revert or produce a quote, from the source, supporting that Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press, Polish Government officials, supported by French intelligence, stated that many of the alleged antisemitic tracts attributed to the Blue Army were in fact a product of willful disinformation based purely on hearsay and confabulation emanating from Russian and German government sources. Polish officials said that disinformation was part of an effort to discredit the new Polish Government, and in the process weaken the much needed Allied support for the new Polish State.. Professor Carole Fink most certainly does not write that there were "false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press". Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I was notified because I have been active on this article previously. As for your content objections, please use the talk page to address them, since you haven't bothered to do that. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In particular please explain why you're removing sourced material. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed information sourced to a primary 1920 document (with some OR on top of it - In an effort to curb the abuses, is not supported by the 1920 yearbook source),[7] restored the stable version of the lede, and removed a gross misrepresentation of a source. @Volunteer Marek: - you restored the passage above which in our voice states "Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions" and "To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press" - supposedly sourced to page 227 of a book by professor Carole Fink. I read page 227 of Defending the Rights of Others - it does not support this language. It does support the existence of a Polish government propaganda effort. As you restored this content - please demonstrate how this is supported by the source. I also corrected this to match the actual footnote, and removed this piece of OR/SYNTH (which is not stated in the source). If you haven't actually checked what you are reverting - I suggest you self-revert - misrepresenting sources is a rather big deal. Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a source from 1920 and I don't see OR in it. There's no Wikipedia policy which privileges a "stable" (i.e. older) version. You removed text based on a source by David Engel for apparently no reason. Fink addresses the German and Russian propaganda through out the book. I'm also unclear whether you're objecting to the info or to the info being stated in Wiki voice. Your position seems to be self-contradictory. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
We do not cherrypick (the yearbook mainly listing atrocities) 1920 PRIMARY sources, and we definitely do not add OR. I do not have to prove a negative - the present text is not support by the cited page 227 of Fink - it is a rather bad misrepresentation (with a tad of SYNTH as well). Edit warring in the lede against a RfC result is also generally not cool.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is being cherrypicked - the info is obviously pertinent and there's nothing wrong with using a SECONDARY source from the time (it would be primary if this was an article about the yearbook itself, but it ain't). and there's no OR here. You still haven't explained why you're removing text based on a source from David Engel. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am undecided on the David Engel reference, but lean towards keeping it; my bias to to keep relevant referenced info. But...did Engel specifically state that the Morganthau report did not list places where the Blue Army was said to have engaged in pogroms? Did he argue that those pogroms may not have occurred because the Morganthau report didn't list them? Because the reference does have the flavor of Original Research. That is, a wikipedia editor is building a case that the pogroms didn't happen by stating that this report didn't include them. Article should list facts from reliable sources and conclusions from reliable sources. Not build its own case.Faustian (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, it is rather likely that in addition to edit warring, the other editor was engaging in canvassing. He somehow forget to inform any of the other editors who were involved in this article; he only happened to contact two editors whom he might have thought were sympathetic to him.Faustian (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Faustian: No, Engel did not state the Morgenthau report did not contain these locations. To the contrary - Engel stated that Morgenthau covers the events in and around Lwow. The report itself covers Lwow (the two other locations being close suburbs of Lwow). So - this is a misrepresentation of Engel as well as WP:OR - factually incorrect OR. Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see. So if the Morganthau report is about Lwow and does not address Sambir (which is over 70 km from Lwow), saying that the Morganthau report doesn't mention atrocities in Sambir is clearly misleading. It creates the false picture that Morganthau denied that atrocities occurred in Sambir when Morganthau simply didn't investigate it. If this is the case the Engel citation ought to be removed.Faustian (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I requested assistance from Volunteer Marek and Piotrus because they are heavily involved in topics related to Poland and they are extremely knowledgeable in this area. Also, I will add that in several articles I strongly disagreed with both of these editors, so this was not a prompt to get automatic support, but a request to get two experienced editors to weigh in on the content of the article. --E-960 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

What's going on with the archives for this talk page? Entries from 2017 are smeared all across pages 2-6. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It also seems that the editing to the lede was in contravention to this RfC from 2017. Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No idea how you get that. Also, that was, well, um, one of "Godric's" closes. Non-admin. Screwed up a lot of closes. This one isn't that bad (though it's not about what you claim it is), though obviously it has problems (like calling it "Unanimous" when it's clearly not). Volunteer Marek 17:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The 2017 RfC was on the material edit warred in the past few days out of the lede. @Winged Blades of Godric:'s close was inline with consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree. RFC was closed after 3 wanted to keep and the edit warrior wanted to remove. It looks like he waited a few years and decided to remove thinking others forgot. And then edit-warred to keep it out after others restored it. And here we are.Faustian (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, Godric is/was not an admin, he was doing a lot of sketchy closes at the time (for example, by not waiting sufficiently for discussion to conclude) and this is illustrated here in his obviously incorrect statement that the !vote was unanimous, which it wasn't. Also this RfC was just about whether a particular ref could be used. That's a different issue. The issue here is whether the sentence is WP:DUE in the lede. Volunteer Marek 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The RFC was: "Should the Introduction paragraph continue to display a reference source from Encyclopedia Judaica (reference source citation [1]) when it was taken down by the website, and is a dead link (currently retained by use of Wayback Machine). Also, should the same reference source citation display the entire paragraph from the encyclopedia?" Consensus was to keep the reference. It is implied that consensus exists that the sentence being referenced should also be kept in the lede.Faustian (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the RfC was about a particular reference, not whether the sentence is DUE in the lede. And contrary to Godric's statement, it wasn't unanimous. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, please provide evidence for Screwed up a lot of closes from the exact time-span or retract with an apology.If you have any problems with my closures, you know about the subsequent procedure to overturn it.Right?
As to unanimous, any RFC on a content-dispute almost-always means that there is at-least one opposer. So, in a sense, if every participant takes a contrarian stand to that opposer, it is unanimous.
You can disagree with my interpretation of the word but that doesn't change the fact the essence of the closure, in favor of inclusion of the source, was quite-valid.If you have any qualms, AN is thatway.
Interestingly, (whilst I have not looked at this dispute and does not have any interest, either) I see that you have noted the supposed locus of dispute to be independent of the previous RFC.So, I'm genuinely amazed as to why every rebuttal of your's also feature a concurrent statement about mine being a non-admin, usage of unanimous and all that.Cheers!WBGconverse 11:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"So, in a sense, ... it is unanimous." Yeah, I'm sorry but there is no "sense" in which not-unanimous somehow means "unanimous". No matter how much you try to magically wish it to be true. Maybe there's like an online encyclopedia where you could look that up or something. "Unanimous" isn't a word you "interpret". It's like saying that you "interpret" 2+2 to equal 5. So take those excuses elsewhere. And yeah, there were complaints about your closes. I have no idea what your last sentence is suppose to actually mean or what is "interesting" about it. Volunteer Marek 06:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I note that you are yet to provide a diff (that's the way evidence is provided over en.wiki), from that particular time-span or later. And, WP:AN is always available, for a challenge of any of my closes, you do not agree with. Best, WBGconverse 07:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentations / OR / SYNTH[edit]

I've removed the following as misrepresentations, OR, SYNTH, or being based on unreliable sources -

  1. [8] - The cited source - Engel - does not say this. In fact he says the opposite. The Morgenthau report included Lwow and the around around it. So this is a mis-citation, OR, and factually incorrect.
  2. [9] - This was a rather gross misrepresentation of page 227 of Fink. I've replaced the content with a summary of the 2 paragraphs in page 227.
  3. [10] - Sourced entirely to Gesher Galicia's (a geneological website/society) quarterly. Written by Edward Goldstein (the editor of the publication) - this would probably count as self-published. A better source is required for this. This is also a misrepresentation of Goldstein's "Jewish names" claim which is very qualified in the source - per Goldstein - "Now, as every researcher knows, the definition of what constitutes a “Jewish” name is a slippery one. Individuals with “Jewish” names often turn out to be anything but Jewish, and vice versa" - Goldstein basically scanned a list of 1,318 names in a casualty list and judged 62 to be probably Jewish. Goldstein's work does not seem to be cited by others (with the exception of a BA thesis).
  4. [11] - I removed OR ("In an effort to curb the abuses" is not supported by the source which seems to portray this as an action intended for the ears English and French representatives). I also rectified the cherrypicking of the source by including other coverage of Haller's troops and beard cutting. I will note I did not insert the numerous events involving bears which Haller's troops are not specifically named by the source - though in many they were involved.

We should be sticking to high quality sources, and we certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: - you've reverted content with the summary "no consensus to removing referenced text." - please state specifically how this is supported by Engel - whose text (as well as Morgenthau report itself) contradicts this. This is a serious misrepresentation of the cited source.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Uhm, no. The report references the pogrom of Lviv pogrom of 1918, the "area around Lviv" referenced by Prusin is regarding an incidnet after 1919. So you are confusing two different events. --E-960 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Your WP:OR on the report (which actually quite clearly contains the area around Lviv - as Lwow is one of the major events Morgenthau looked at) is not supported by the source you are citing - David Engel does not write this in his journal article - which is what you are citing. I will further note that while Engel is a fine scholar, he is not known for his soothsaying abilities (Engel publishing in 1987 would find it hard to refer to Prusin in 2005). This is a a serious misrepresentation of Engel. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Section title for Anti-Jewish violence[edit]

Anti-Jewish violence by Haller's troops are not denied by anyone, Haller himself issued orders (which were not carried out by his men) for these attacks to cease. Academic sources treat these incidents as factual. At best, there are very marginal (and mostly periodic propaganda by the Polish government) sources disputing the scale of the attacks. Titling the section as Reports of anti-Jewish violence[12] is not concise and is a flagrant NPOV issue since it introduces false doubt - not supported by any credible source. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wondered about that. "Reports" means the reports themselves are the subject, eg. when discussing a chronology ("early reports...") or false accusations ("reports of... [were questioned by...]"). If you've a list of events of a questionable nature and you title the section "reports of events of a questionable nature", "reports" becomes an unnecessary and potentially biasing qualifier. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, "reports" is an unnecessary word there.Faustian (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Clear undue weight, at this point the article has 3,100 words and 900 (30%) are in the anti-Jewish violence section.[edit]

At this point, this is clearly undue weight and after a string of recent edits the article has about 3,100 words of which 900 (30%) are in the anti-Jewish violence section and intro statement. What's most troubling is that some editors despite good faith calls to balance out the text actually added even more detail. I don't understand how that helps the situation.

To suit editors who feel that this issue should include more detail, I've created a separate page, since this one issue is taking over the Blue Army article. Given the word count numbers above, it's clear that a separate article is needed.

Pls note that a new article Anti-Jewish violence in Eastern Galicia involving soldiers of the Blue Army has been created. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the preponderance of high quality sources covering the Blue Army's antisemitic attacks in great detail and the effect of said attacka in Poland's international standing and on societal post-war developments in the post war second republic - not only is said content DUE, but it should be expanded to reflect coverage in sources. Creating a spinoff article is not warrented while we are discussing this article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The numbers were very telling, 30% of this article was devoted just to this one issue. --E-960 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As per extensive coverage in RSes. Needless to say, you are acting against consensus in this article by removing most of the text on antisemitism (oddly leaving a short paragraph sourced to a PRIMARY mid-war report) - consensus that for the lede was covered in a RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There are more than one way to skin a cat. Deletion of this material is not acceptable. Against consensus. But if you want to highlight the Blue Army's other history, please do so. Find WP:RSs and have at it. I am sure the Blue Army did more than be Anti-Jewish. Then it will not be 3,100/900. 7&6=thirteen () 18:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll change the number to historian Howard Sachar's estimate 400 and 500. --E-960 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:7&6=thirteen, this is clear bias, you don't load an article with undue weight and than say you can fix that by adding more "history" somewhere else. This is blatant POV PUSHING, that's not how Wikipedia works. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

E-960 Actually, I didn't add anything. So your accusation of "point of view pushing" is misdirected.
The history is what it is.
But Bowdlerizing history and Cover ups is not how Wikipedia works, either. Apparently you have a very large rug handy.
You are disregarding WP:Consensus.
If you won't like the article the way it is, make it better and more comprehensive. 7&6=thirteen () 18:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is bias, plain and simple. 30% of an article devoted to ONE controversial topic, and you think that's fine? Nowhere, in no other Wikipedia article would that be accepted as being balanced or neutral. And the cynical response to just add more history elsewhere is so telling. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no controversy that the Blue Army carried out dozens of antisemitic attacks - abusing (cutting beards), wounding, robbing, and killing Jewish civilians. No reliable source claims otherwise. At most, some ethnonationalist sources contest the scale of atrocities (and even that - not by much).Icewhiz (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Your insistence on impugning the motives of other editors is telling. No one has called you a Fellow traveler or a pseudo Holocaust denier. Talk about the content, not about the editors and their motives. 7&6=thirteen () 18:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there were anti-semitic acts, however there was controversy due to German and Russian disinformation regarding the scale and severity. However, loading every detail on this one issue into the article constitutes undue weight — you can't have 30% of an article devoted to this issue, and say that's ok. --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:7&6=thirteen, all the text on anti-Jewish violence, including the additional stuff added today (despite the fact that I suggested the text should be condensed, yet more was added) is in the new article, I'm not hiding anything. But, trying to make the Blue Army look like a pogroming force and make that the focus of the original article, is not ok, and clearly bias. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Make the article better by adding, not subtracting. Also, one reason why the pogrom section is so large is that you have added "excuses" to it. It can probably be trimmed of information not directly pertaining to it, such as "|Sociologist Tadeusz Piotrowski has written that far more Poles and Ukrainians in the region were killed than were Jews, and that in most cases it was impossible to disentangle gratuitous antisemitism from commonplace looting and brutality of the soldiery. Piotrowski wrote the application of the term "pogrom" in the accepted sense of the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians could not be applied to the great majority of the incidents which occurred.[37."Faustian (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

30% is not bad, I'd worry if it was over 50%. A dedicated article seems like a fair option, as the topic has been studied and discussed, and it is possible some content could be moved to it. I generlaly agree with Faustian the best solution would be to expand the article's other sections, it is certainly not too long. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree other sections could use some expansion. I don't see much that needs to be moved/reduced in this rather short article on an organization that many sources mainly treat in the context of antisemitism. As for the separate article (in current form - an invalid spinoff) - we could certainly compile a list of every incident (and this is available is sources - starting with the American Jewish year book from the period - which compile all of them, and continuing with later academic secondary coverage) - it would be a rather long article. If anyone wants to take up compiling in great detail Haller's Army actions (anyone else think this should be renamed?) - that's certainly possible. Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Piotrus and User:Icewhiz I think an Arbitration Committee might need to be raised, because there is a clear pattern of manufactured "consent" where the same few editors support each other across articles, it does not matter that such editots reach "consent" when its blatantly in contradiction to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines. I'm really intetested to see how the argument of 'just add more text in other sections' flies in an ArbCom to justify POV pushing of one subject in an article througt depth of detai and quantity of text. --E-960 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be fair to say that Piotrus and myself often disagree on this topic (though we have managed to work collaboratively and constructively). If there is any "manufacturing" going on - 13:21, 8 October 2018 - is a post by E-960 on Piotrus' talk page asking for input on this article. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering I've been a major contributor to this and related articles in the past, I am not surprised I was asked for input. And I repeat what I said: this article is short and in need of an expansion. I don't think the anti-Jewish violent needs any further expansion, and yes, it is a bit too long (undue) in the context of this article - but this is simply because other sections are too short or missing. There are books dedicated to the Blue Army, just look in the further reading/refs on pl wiki. If E-960 thinks this section is undue, spend a few hours in a library, and expand other sections. That way everyone wins. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The content of this artice is in blatant violation of Wiki Neutrality Rules, no matter what excuse you try to provide to justify keeping POV material which focuses on just ONE issue.--E-960 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • user:Piotrus can you kindly show me where in Wikipedia guidelines it say that when there is undue weight in an article go write more in other sections to fix the problem? I've must have mised it, unless there is a special 'make up a bunch of nonsese to justify consent which violates basic Wikipedia quality standards' rule reserved for decorated editors that says that? You, Icewhiz and Faustian can use that argument at ArbCom, see if it's legit. --E-960 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that there are two literatures here. If you look at the literature on Polish-Jewish relations during the interwar period, then yeah, those sources will discuss the Blue Army and what it did in that context. But if you look at the literature which is specifically about the Blue Army then the anti-semitic occurrences usually get a brief mention - because at this time in this war/time period, pretty much every army involved - the moderate Ukrainian nationalists, the not so moderate Ukrainian nationalists, the pro-Bolshevik Ukrainians, the White Russians of various stripes, the Bolsheviks (in particular Buddonny) were guilty of anti-semitism and pogroms. And because, the Blue Army's primary notability lies elsewhere - the role it played in establishing an independent Poland. So the question becomes what weight should the two different literatures be given in the article. I think it makes more sense to follow the sources which are specifically dedicated to the Blue Army, since that is the subject of this article. Which means that yes, the anti-semitic acts should be mentioned here but should not be given undue weight. In other articles, which specifically relate to Polish-Jewish relations in the interwar period, these same acts should get more coverage. Volunteer Marek 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

One might argue that there are more sources covering the antisemitic incidents than the role in warfare - if that were to be the case, would we redact all of the warfare content - perhaps moving it to Blue Army warfare in the Polish–Soviet War - leaving this article to focus solely on the antisemitic incidents? I think not. As always - when there are multiple aspects to a topic - we cover them all - particularly when they are covered in depth in the sources. There are section here that could definitely use expansion - e.g. "Western Front" merely covers organization during this period, not operations. Likewise - actual operations in "Polish–Ukrainian War" and "Polish–Bolshevik War" are due for expansion - we have lots of content on the background of the blue army, how it was mobilized, how it moved from France to Poland - but very little on its operations. Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Build up those other sections, rather than remove sourced content from other sections.Faustian (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that is pretty much the definition of UNDUE weight. And Icewhiz's proposal is too... add more undue weight? This is not a proposal intended to reach a compromise. If you want to actually understand the problem and listen to your fellow editors, then take a look at the article on the 1st Cavalry Army of Semyon Budyonny. This unit carried out far more pogroms of far more brutal nature than anything the Blue Army did, during the same time and roughly as part of the same conflict. Yet, these anti-semitic incidents get... ONE brief sentence in that article. And it's not for a lack of sources. Indeed, Budyonny's atrocities were contemptuously recorded by Isaac Babel who was with his unit, and Babel's writings have obviously been covered by literally thousands of secondary sources. Yet..... it's this article for some reason that some editors chose to obsess about and pack full of negative information. Again, this is the very definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. And for some editors, probably a WP:AGENDA. Yes, the anti-semitic acts of the Blue Army need to be mentioned. But that doesn't mean we give it UNDUE weight. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
1st Cavalry Army article is small and undeveloped. If someone added information to that article such that 1/3 of the article detailed anti-Jewish actions, it would not be undue weight. Secondly, you seem to think that editors interested in one aspect of a topic need to hold back and limit what they add, if other aspects aren't developed. Overall, this would limit wikipedia. Faustian (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's sort of an excuse. And yeah I think it would be undue. Volunteer Marek 06:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek the problem is that some users use Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to block any changes or even a compromise to the disputed section. Btw, Faustian, pls provide us with the link to the Wikipedia page which recommends "Build up those other sections" to remedy Undue Weight. --E-960 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It isn't stonewalling when 3 editors want to remove content and 5 want to keep it (counting who wants what done here currently). It's consensus. It it has been consensus before too. Over and over again.Faustian (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly in the same period and conflict and area there existed West Ukrainian People's Republic which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I couldn't help but noticed how dimatetrically opposed the two articles are. It is even more interesting if you can read the Polish version of the article where there's a whole list of camps for Poles and death toll mentioned, far higher then here by the way.The fact that the articles about these similar events and in the same area are treated so differently strikes me as indicating high POV views of editors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea what this argument is about. The information looks WP:DUE (both on its own accord and for the number of scholars it kept busy at night) and properly sourced, and the argument against it sounds more like "but they did great things!!!" than "this doesn't reflect the relative importance given to it by scholars". Could it be more concise? Sure, but it's not actually that long to begin with - overall it's a pretty straightforward account of events. François Robere (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have "no idea what this argument is about" then exactly why are you commenting here? Just to reflexively support Icewhiz? Volunteer Marek 03:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, Marek! How have you been? François Robere (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dandy, as always. See, I answered your question. Now can you answer mine? Volunteer Marek 06:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm here for the cake. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
About 30% of the National Armed Forces is also about Jews. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to 1st Cavalry Army[edit]

The 1st Cavalry Army article is under-developed. If someone expanded it to 30% of it being reliably-sourced content on anti-Jewish violence, I don't think anyone would object. Even if it were filled with 90% of such content, it would still be an improvement over the present state.

Edits should generally follow sources; if reliable sources do not cover the Army's battlefield performance to the extent that they cover violence against civilians, then the article should reflect that. I think the objection to undue weight would be valid if editors were trying to block an expansion of the article to include other content, but I'm not seeing it here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books[edit]

I read the book by Alexander Victor Prusin and it is used very selectively, Prusin doesn't mention anything about Haller's units raping or burning books on page 103. He does point out wider context of the conflict mainly support by Jewish organizations for German Empire, and he does describe in detail their opposition towards Polish independence and attempts of Polish politicians to reconcile with Jewish groups which were rejected. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Already been discussed and RFC'd: [13]. Full paragraph by Prusn:

"The situation in Kresy Wshodnie and Galiica also reflected the psychological imprint of the four years of continuous warfare, for World War I and the frontier wars made the residents of these areas inured to brutalities and suffering. The violence not only served the immediate needs of personal enrichment but also provided a legitimate and relatively easy target - Jews - upon which to unleash personal frustrations. Looting and robbery, therefore, were consistently accompanied by beatings, rapes, and wanton destruction of prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues. The congruence of ethnic and ideological animosities also precipitated assaults. Two units - Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army - especially earned the reputation of notorious Jew-baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski. The anti-Jewish zeal of these soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznan province, where Jews sided with the Germans during the Polish-German conflict in the winter of 1919. Similarly, the actions of Haller's army, which had arrived from France, might be explained by the fact that some contingents came from the United States, where Jewish-Polish relations went from bad to worse during World War I."Faustian (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The above paragraph doesn't mention Haller's Blue Army as engaging in rapes or burning of books Faustian.It mentions that these things happened but doesn't specifically state that BA was responsible for these kind of actions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Also the RFC you mentioned is both inconclusive and also regarding completely different book and quote.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Already been argued by your side, no consensus for your creative interpretation. In the same paragraph Prusin described a laundry list of crimes and singles out Haller's Blue Army and Poznan regiments as responsible for those crimes. Very creative interpretation that Haller's army wasn't involved.Faustian (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is straight forward original research since the source does not support the claim. It's WP:SYNTHesized. Pointing out that something is OR and SYNTH is NOT "creative interpretation". And since this is quite an extreme claim which raises WP:REDFLAGs. Which means that you need to find other sources - if it's true, it shouldn't be hard - or it goes. Volunteer Marek 07:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You have a paragraph describing various atrocities. In the same paragraph, the author singles out Haller's army as one of two units who were the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. It would appear to be original research to claim that somehow the info in the same paragraph does not pertain to Haller's army. And indeed a previous RFC concluded the same thing I have.Faustian (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, two different units and it's unclear which ones were responsible for what. For example, we do now that the Lwow part does not apply to the BA since they weren't in Poland when it happened. So the particular list of localities is indeed original research. Volunteer Marek 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling arguments against change. I agree that this statement does not directly say that the BA engaged in those things, given the controversial nature of this topic only high quality sources and direct references to the BA should be used. --E-960 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry the paragraph in question wasn't discussed in RFC at all as far as I can see--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Also the paragraph doesn't name Blue Army as engaging in rapes or burning of books.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
See link above. RFC was closed with the statement : " The statement does properly reflect the source. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)".Faustian (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Especially when the RfC is so old and does not specifically address this issue but a different one. Oh, and it's another non-admin close. WP:REDFLAG applies. Volunteer Marek 07:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Has consensus changed? More people seem to agree that this belongs, than that it does not belong. Two RFCs asked if a sentence based on this paragraph, stating that Haller's army engaged in various crimes, belongs in the article because the paragraph describes crimes committed by Haller's army (see link here: [14]). The first RFC was closed with the conclusion that " the statement is not dubious because it is consistent with source, and may be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)." The second RFC (same link, just scroll down) reached same conclusion: "The statement does properly reflect the source. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)". Opposition came from a permanently banned user. Do we need to open a third RFC?Faustian (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"Rape" is a very serious matter and it should be covered. Can we have an additional source to verify that? I'm unable to find anything in English or Polish. Any Ukrainian sources F.? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

..An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, the discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly supports the information - it is in the same paragraph and singles out Haller's troops as an egregious example of this. Previous RfC concluded this should be included. This is not a minor aspect of the Blue Army - much (and quite possibly most, at least in English) of the coverage of Haller's troops is in the context of antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I will further note that Hagen, page 317 - [15] - supports this as well - Hallerites were enacting, through beard cutting with bayonets, a symbolic slaughter of religious Jews, akin to the “Judas Fest.” They were redistributing Jews' ill-gotten gains among joyous Christian poor (keeping better booty for themselves). Their civilian followers, adn they themselves, laughed uproariously at elderly Jews' misery. They tried, though failed, to demolish the synagogue and the rabbi's house. They proclaimed, through their victims' mouths, the rabbis death. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder". Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The above fragment also doesn't mention anything about rape.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Read again. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder".Icewhiz (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hagen is the author who incorrectly attributes the Lwow Pogrom to the BA, even though the BA was not even in Poland at the time. His work is an example of Western English language literature which is unfamiliar with the subject and engages in a sort of "orientalism" with regard to Eastern Europe, employing stereotypes and hearsay rather than serious research. He seems to have trouble telling Eastern Europeans apart for example. His knowledge of the region appears to come directly via German language works and as such tends to repeat the claims made in these without critical inquiry. Since we do not he got a whole bunch of other shit wrong, I see no reason to use him here either. If the claims are verifiable, then it should be easy to find other sources. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Your criticism and WP:OR regarding a highly cited well-regarded tenured historian specializing in Eastern Europe duly noted. However, I did attempt to WP:V this citation in the article (something - lacking for much of the content in the article), and saw that the original says - It was, together with lawless civilians, mainly troops of the Haller legions who, with the connivance or toleration of their military superiors, carried out the pogrom. (bold mine). In Haller legions, I would assume Hagen is not referring to Haller's army (or the Blue Army), but rather to 2nd Brigade, Polish Legions commanded by Józef Haller. I am unable to verify Lida via the citation. So - it would seem the issue is not with Hagen, but with whichever editor added this bit to begin with. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed the Lwow and Lida claim attributed to Hagen based on the above quote from the cited source which does not support it.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you made to verify and the edit. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

a highly cited well-regarded tenured historian specializing in Eastern Europe - very funny. We slaves from Eastern Europe don't like our ignorant white masters. There are books and academic papers about Western bias and ignorance. Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For now, the entire story of rapes committed by BA is based on a single, no apparent source. Are there any other sources verifying the claim of rape crimes committed by BA? GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Its source is perfectly reliable, Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914–1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. It clearly describes rapes as being consistently used by two units - from the source - Looting and robbery, therefore, were consistently accompanied by beatings, rapes, and wanton destruction of prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues.- Who did such things?According to the source, - Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army. - Note that rapes were described as having been done consistently by these units. A second source obliquely mentions rapes. "Hallerites were enacting, through beard cutting with bayonets, a symbolic slaughter of religious Jews, akin to the “Judas Fest.” They were redistributing Jews' ill-gotten gains among joyous Christian poor (keeping better booty for themselves). Their civilian followers, and they themselves, laughed uproariously at elderly Jews' misery. They tried, though failed, to demolish the synagogue and the rabbi's house. They proclaimed, through their victims' mouths, the rabbis death. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914-1920 By William W. Hagen. There have been two RFCs about this already, and if one counts the opinions here in the last couple of weeks, the ones who want the info removed are outnumbered. It is unfortunate that some editors (not you) choose to engage in making edits without connensus when they can't achieve consensus on the talk page.Faustian (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet another one - "was recaptured by the Polish army, they accused the Jews of collaborating with the Bolsheviks and started to harass them, surpassed the other in violence were the soldiers of General Haller. There were cases of robbery and rape.[16]. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Reordering of "hot" segment[edit]

The first paragraph of the "Reports of anti-Jewish sentiment" section is an elaboration on the paragraphs that follow - the reverse order of things. The section should start with the description of the events, and only then go on to provide explanations.

Any objections? François Robere (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No, explanations are often in front of the article so that the reader can understand context of the situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
But this isn't background information, it's post-factual explanation. It makes no sense to put it before the facts. François Robere (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This is background information and it is used in scholarly sources like Prusin.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
How is it "background information" if it is given as explanation of the events? When you write "The antagonism exhibited towards [non-Poles]", you're referring to something that should've already been introduced, but this isn't the case. When you write "soldiers who targeted Jews and Ukrainian civilians" in the first paragraph the reader goes "what soldiers? who? I don't remember reading about that!" No, this looks like it was plucked from the back of the section and planted in the front. François Robere (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The background section is important to understand context, as to your interpetation that is just your point of view. Several articles have background section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We should start out with leading the the antisemitic attacks- or at least a summary thereof - before offering possible theories for why Haller's troops were antisemitic - we should also attribute such explainations - as they vary between sources and even within sources (providing a few different explanations). The paragraph has V and NPOV problems -
  1. certainly it misrepresents or over simplifies Michlic's writing by saying that "Soldiers who targeted local Jewish and Ukrainian civilians believed that they were collaborating with Poland's enemies, either the Ukrainian Galician Army or Bolshevik Russia" (one of a multitude of causes).
  2. In regards to The antagonism exhibited towards non-Polish ethnic groups by some of Haller's soldiers directly stemmed from earlier events of the Greater Poland Uprising when Poles rose up against German rule only to find out that the Jews in the region sided with the German authorities, a decision primarily based on economic factors attributed to page 103 of Prusin - is a gross misrepresentation. Prusin cites a number of causes - 1. Statements by Pilsudski and leaflets by the "Committee of Jewish Pogroms" - sounded to the crowds as official state sanction for the attacks. 2. Socioeconomic tensions - Polish resentment of their government's unwillingness to carry out land reforms - leading to cries of "down with the landlords and Jews!" (during attacks). 3. Lack of compensation to Polish soldiers (by the gvmt) - looting Jews was seen as partial compensation for hardship by soldiers, who had no moral dilemma doing so. 4. Unleashing personal frustration on an easy target - the Jews. 5. In relation to the Ponzan regiments (but not Haller!) - Jewish cooperation with the Germans in the winter of 1919. 6. For Haller specifically - Jewish-Polish relations going from bad to worse in the United States in WWI. 7. The Jewish Bolshevism canard .... So no - Prusin does not attribute this as a cause for Haller (and he doesn't say "economic factors" were a reason for siding with the Germans in Ponzan) - Haller's troops weren't in Ponzan.
If we are to cover the possible causes for the antisemitism - we should comprehensively cover what reliable sources say. In any event - as there are multiple possible causes, and causation is always somewhat loose - attributing this to whomever said this would be a good idea.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparing this article to article about West Ukrainian People's Republic[edit]

I think it is interesting to compare this article to the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic. Both articles concern the same conflict and timeframe as well as area. Whereas here the article is almost in 40% about persecution of national minority, the West Ukrainian People's Republic article barely mentions the mass oppression of Polish population and atrocities that happened there. In fact if you read it there's barely mention of it at all, and any attacks on Polish civilians are blamed on "Polish sabotage". Why are the two cases of persecution of national groups treated so differently in two articles on the same conflict? It is even more striking if you consider that West Ukrainian People's Republic had camps for ethnic Poles where thousands died in poor conditions, a death toll far bigger than the one here. To me this comparision does indicate POV issues with the treatment of these topics.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources for other info by all means add it to the Western Ukrainian People's Republic article. Try to avoid Polish nationalists :-) But this has nothing to do with this article.Faustian (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) A (short lived) country with millions of residents vs. a small army with significant coverage of atrocities. WP:OSE is rarely a good arguement - in as much as oppression of Poles is significant in RSes covering West Ukrainian People's Republic - how about editing it in there? It seems the last discussion on the talk page there, involving more than 1 editor, took place in 2011.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
My last post on this topic on this article talk page. Polish version of article described atrocities from a reliable source - Rafal Galuba -and from unreliable sources - such as Lucyna Kulińska. The reliable stuff by Galuba should be verified and included in that article and I will do so. Faustian (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Order of battle clarifying text[edit]

I wanted to add a sentence to the top of the Blue_Army_(Poland)#Order_of_battle section to explain to laymen what "order of battle" means, and can't because the article is blocked. If an administrator wants to add it, here's my suggestion:

The [[order of battle]] shows the hierarchical organization of an armed force participating in a military operation or campaign. The Blue Army order of battle was as follows: 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talkcontribs) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition after 24 hours.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
== Most recent changes ==

Clearly there is no consensus for the massive changes made after the block was removed, so I restored the previous version. Looking at the discussion above [17], the editors who agree to those changes seem to be outnumbered 3:6, yet one editor went with the minority viewpoint and made changes against consensus.

Although I agree that the section about the Jewish volunteers is poorly sourced, and probably shouldn't be included, there does not seem to be clear consensus to remove that section, so I restored it also pending further discussion.Faustian (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I will note that this revert returned WP:OR not supported by the Jewish Yearbook as well as gross misrepresentation of page 227 of Carole Fink's book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Faustian: - the Jewish volunteers section is sourced entirely to Gesher Galicia's (a geneological website/society) quarterly. Written by Edward Goldstein (the editor of the publication) - this would probably count as self-published. A better source is required for this. This is also a misrepresentation of Goldstein's "Jewish names" claim which is very qualified in the source - per Goldstein - "Now, as every researcher knows, the definition of what constitutes a “Jewish” name is a slippery one. Individuals with “Jewish” names often turn out to be anything but Jewish, and vice versa" - Goldstein basically scanned a list of 1,318 names in a casualty list and judged 62 to be probably Jewish. Goldstein's work does not seem to be cited by others (with the exception of a BA thesis). Such a misrepresentation of Goldstein's work should not be restored (and probably should be present at all - given the marginal sourcing here). Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Goldstein's (who himself, to my understanding, is writing in a non-academic context on genealogy) analysis is based on a list by Paul S. Valasek - a dentist by trade who has been involved in genealogy.[18] Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this ought to be removed.Faustian (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I entered the additional sources to back that up Faustian, this should not be removed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
And as before, they're somewhat problematic: One by the "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" from 1987, which I wouldn't consider an RS; another an RS from 1939 (good luck finding it in your local library), and only one recent RS (2010) that we should be able to use. François Robere (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The 2010 source ain't much use by my reading. This is a local history and refers to a single individual - Nuchem Brachman.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There are other names of Jewish fighters in these publications. They are listed below with the corresponding page numbers. Just type the name and the short info about the person will appear. There were actually quite a few of these soldiers. I guess people enlisted for a variety of reasons into either Galician or Polish Army. I haven't researched why exactly but I'm guessing that most were already more or less assimilated and identified themselves either as Ukrainians of Poles, but this is just my guess. The bottom line is that the Blue Army received volunteers of Jewish background like Siegmann for example. [19] Jewish veterans of the war even established an Association of Jewish fighters for Polish Independence ( Związek Żydów Uczestników Walk o Niepodległość Polski) (6700 members[20]) after the conflict ended. --> "The call of the fallen" in the picture here [21] Similar ceremonies were taking place elsewhere in Poland also -> [22] For example, Nikodem Polak (a vice president of the Association of Jewish fighters for Polish Independence) was an officer in the Haller Army (Blue Army), the link to his obituary is here.[23] His funeral was led by the Rabbis Freund and Lewin (story below obituary) GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Given this unit's reputation for violence against Jews, it is probably notable that there were some Jews fighting in it and this ought to be included in the article, although an entire section devoted to them seems excessive and Goldstein's estimate doesn't seem to be a RS..Faustian (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

content from Defending the Rights of Others[edit]

@E-960: you've removed sourced information in this revert that was present (in a distorted form - misrepresenting the source) in the stable version of the article. Your reversion rationale -- Reverted edit, this text was added by user on 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018‎, in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS to include this NEW text in the article. is not based on any policy. Please point to a discussion in which there was no consensus for this. Removal of well sourced information, to an academic book by an expert, requires a solid rationale based on policy. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

3R rule, in the middle of an edit war and a discussion regarding UNDE WEIGHT in the article you decided to add even more material to the disputed section — text was reverted because not only did it add more material to the already lengthy section, but also because the text did not pertain to the BA directly, discussing separate events in Warsaw and Paris (clearly going off on a tangent). --E-960 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This is no way related to 3RR. I did not decide to add more disputed material - I corrected a very serious misrepresentation of Fink (and an editor edit warring against consensus to blank a section (+lede) - is not grounds for letting a serious misrepresentation that is defamatory to the cited author stand). I actually removed 312 bytes in the diff - [24] - of content that was longstanding. As for "going off on a tangent" - Fink clearly ties the diplomatic ramifications of Haller's pogroms to Haller, referring explicitly to "reports of a new wave of violence unleashed by Haller's troops against the Jewish population of Galicia". The international ramifications of the violence committed by the Blue Army is clearly relevant to the Blue Army, as is the Polish propaganda campaign regarding these reports. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding text on Padarewski's Paris diplomacy and unrelated street riots in Warsaw is info not directly tied to the BA. --E-960 (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This diff, under discussion, did not add anything about anti-Jewish violence in Warsaw. The cited source, Fink, clearly ties the BA's actions to diplomacy in Paris. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
If this was a separate article, you could go into secondary issues like impact on diplomacy, but to start discussing events at the Paris peace conference is too much given issues of undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In the lead already[edit]

Faustian this [25] is in the lead already.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)