Jump to content

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC: Undue Weight - Disproportionate emphasis on a secondary issue relating to the Blue Army (Poland)

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

While an experienced editor of Wikipedia, this is the first time that I have attempted to establish what consensus has been reached at an RfC. While I believe that I am doing something important in trying to help clear the RfC closure backlog, my comparative inexperience with this task should therefore be acknowledged.

During the debate, there was little support for the nominator's initial request to remove all mention of the Blue Army's actions against Jews from the Introduction and halve the coverage of this issue in the article body. However, four editors (including the original nominator) expressed support for a more moderate version which called for the "Anti-Jewish violence" section to be edited down to make it more concise. Precisely how that could be achieved has not been significantly detailed.

Conversely, while the nominator believed that these sections were excessively long and out-of-proportion with the rest of the article – and thus placing undue weight on the events that they described – another pointed out that the problem here lies not so much with the length of the section in question, but with the brevity and neglect of the article's other sections. Accordingly, three editors wanted the prose to remain in place.

What is clear is that there is little support for the nominator's original request to have the information on the Blue Army's actions against Jews heavily reduced. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what to do beyond that, with the discussants falling into two, broadly similarly sized camps, both raising valid concerns and points. (non-admin closure) Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Blue Army (Poland) article in its current form disproportionately emphasizes subject matter related to the Jewish experience with Gen. Haller's army ("BA"). This creates an undue weight dilemma, where a secondary issue gradually takes over the article. The basic fact remains that during the 2 year conflict in Western Ukraine between the Poles and Ukrainians, Jewish casualties were "minimal" as noted by historians Tadeusz Piotrowski and Norman Davies. [1] Estimates range between 5 and 400-500 Jewish casualties, which were the direct result of actions committed by BA soldiers — a force of 68,500 men. Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force.

The article contains the following neutrality issues as described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

  • depth of detail;
  • quantity of text; and
  • prominence of placement.

The text related to the "Anti-Jewish violence" section has over the years grown disproportionally in relation to the rest of the article. Also, because of a lack of English language sources on the subject matter, the article is nearly void of any mention of Ukrainian casualties, yet the Ukrainians were the main opponent of the BA — not the local Jewish contingent. I recommend the following action with the help of fellow editors: To remove the third paragraph of the "Introduction" section and re-edit the "Anti-Jewish violence" section down from 4 to 2 full paragraphs, in order to restore proportionality within the article.

Options include the following:

  • Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended
  • Option 2: Keep as is no changes
  • Option 3: Other possible solutions

--E-960 (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is neither concise nor neutrally written. E-960, I'd advise that you withdraw the RfC and reformat it so that you keep your main options, but have maybe 1-2 sentences maximum to introduce them, neutrally, to other editors. -Darouet (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the edits you have already made to the article E-960 appear to directly contradict results of the very recent RfC we held, closed by AlbinoFerret and available in the talk archives here. AlbinoFerret, do you have any advice about this RfC, and whether these edits contradict the results of the last one? -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Blue Army is infamous for the pogroms committed by its soldiers. This activity has earned it its own entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, which notes: [1] "HALLER'S ARMY ("Blue Army"), force of Polish volunteers organized in France during the last year of World War I, responsible for the murder of Jews and anti-Jewish pogroms in Galicia and the Ukraine." The editor opening this RfC has an extensive history of attempting to minimize the Blue Army's negative activities, as seen in this article's history. The antisemitic actions are notable and certainly belong in the lede. Editors who think that 4 paragraphs devoted to a description of the anti-Jewish violence are disproportionate are welcome to add to other sections and to flesh them out. This is a better approach than would be removing information.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I will add that E-960 has not been completely honest about his description of the source he cited. He claimed, "Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers" so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The original source wrote this: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." A different picture than the one presented by E-960. Faustian (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, any chance that E-960 is actually another sock of User:COD T 3? Style of arguments are the same, as is the focus on subject-matter. User:COD T 3 was blocked indef in August 2014, E-960 appeared that same month: [2].Faustian (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Faustian, pls refrain from red-herring type accusations. The reason why "style of arguments are the same" is because it's obvious that in the past you and now user Darouet are going back and forth inserting a particular POV into the article and overemphasizing one specific issue. I don't agree with this approach, I think it is skewed and lacks objectivity. I'm sure that I am not the only editor that thinks that way, hence the RfC. --E-960 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have also long suspected they are a sock, based on their interests and the timing of their work on this article. We could be wrong, but it's worth asking some of the higher-ups what they think. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Darouet, pls consider that perhaps the same way you and Faustian are so focused on this article, there might be editors on the other side of the debate that feel just as strongly about the topic and content neutrality. It should come as no surprise to anyone, that the issue of Polish-Jewish relations is a very sensitive topic and many Poles feel that there is an unfair presentation of facts, I'm sure that I am not the first one that shares this sentiment and won't be the last. Most small time editors sign-up to edit when they come across an article that presents a subject matter in an unbalanced way, and many of the lower ranking articles are like that due to a lack of interest — BA is one of those articles. --E-960 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The ones objecting to it are you, and a banned notorious sockpuppet master. The version before you showed up had the approval of established Polish editors such as VM. Faustian (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It may well be that E-960's stance on this is going too far and will not gain consensus. But see WP:VESTED and WP:CCC; there is no such thing as an "established [topic] editor" whose views count for more than those of other editors. Consensus forms and changes (any time, anywhere on WP) based on who cares enough to give their input into the matter. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are also relevant in this regard; many wikiprojects collectively delude themselves into thinking they have the right to control articles they feel are entirely or mostly within their scope, but they do not, and the entire point of WP:RFC is to bring in outside editors who can see the encyclopedic forest a bit more broadly in the context than topic-focused editors with their faces against a topical tree. :-) I disagree with at least half of what E-960's "solution" would entail, and much of the reasoning for it, but the reasoning against it needs to be more solid, not less.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: thanks for the attention you're giving to the article and talk page. Part of the frustration with COD T 3 and E-960 is this: that for over two years now, efforts to even make a basic accounting of what the Blue Army did or didn't do have been frustrated by edits that blatantly disregard and misrepresent historical accounts. E-960's latest edits are wholly typical. They added as a source a strong-worded denunciation of the BA and its notorious crimes by Encyclopedia Judaica, but painfully twisted them to become: "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative attacked segments of the local Jewish population."
For years, both COD T 3 and then E-960 edit warred to include text stating that one tailor killed by the BA was suspected of Bolshevik sympathies. No cited source ever made that statement.
Lastly, this RfC follows another that was held very recently, available here, and attempts to overturn those results without reference to them.
If we can move past these kinds of blatant misrepresentations, we can accurately characterize what happened, and perhaps even condense the descriptions of antisemitic violence in the body. I'm not sure this is advisable, given the BA's notoriety for this issue, but we can do a more systematic evaluation of sources to understand what appropriate weight would be. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember the earlier discussion, too. The "Bolshevik" thing can just be deleted, since it's unsourced. I think we have an issue that's bigger than that, though. There seem to be two views: Killing of jews was programmatic at least in part, though may have been a matter of tacit approval rather than direct orders, but that the Blue Army as an entity can be held accountable for it; vs. an opposing take that killing of Jews was entirely and solely random acts of violence by individual soldiers. From what I can see, there's a lot of middle ground between these two extremes. If reliable sources themselves disagree on this, then our article needs to outline the disagreement, as always: "According to source X, the killings were facts x,[x] although according to source Y, they were facts Y.[y]" It looks to me like some reliable secondary sources are convinced that the pogrom-like actions were "official" in deed if not in name, even if also some "killer-soldiers" (aren't they all, in wartime?) may have also acted on their own initiative. But some sources seem to want to deny the former. The fact that some sources want to blame it all on individual soliders cannot be used to original-research away the fact that other sources view it as a collective action of racially motivated violence. If the denialist OR and PoV pushing resumes after this RfC concludes, then it may be time to involve the NOR or NPOV noticeboard. But the same can also be said of attempts to coatrack this article out of all balance and make it be overwhelmingly about violence against Jews, when that's only a small part of the notable topic of Blue Army (Poland). Just because one extreme side may be engaging in OR/POV doesn't mean the other side is not. The coverage needs to be balanced, based on reliable not polemic sources (or quote some polemic ones direct as primary sources, without putting their claims in WP's voice), within the bounds of WP:UNDUE, and summarize the nature of the historians' interpretational dispute for our readers, then move on. This article should not dwell at such length on this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I haven't seen sources claiming that it was simply lone soldiers. Somebody provided a very inaccurate (if not dishonest) interpretation of Encyclopedia Judaica to claim this; that has been fixed. As for the broader issue: how is balance best achieved? Secondly - is an editor interested in one aspect of a topic not permitted to build that section of the article if other sections haven't been worked on because other editors didn't happen to be interested in those sections? If nobody bothered to flesh out information about the Blue Army's battles does that mean information about the anti-Jewish violence needs to have sourced information removed? Thirdly, (and I repeat myself) the controversies section can be trimmed a lot simply by removing some of the "excuses," such as: "In some areas, local Jews openly sided with the Ukrainians — Jewish civic committees actively recruited able-bodied men to fight in the Ukrainian Galician Army, and Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian military,[20] but most of the civilians remained neutral." and "The character of Jewish losses was described by sociologist Tadeusz Piotrowski as minimal in comparison to the number of Poles and Ukrainians killed in the region, and that in most cases it was impossible to disentangle gratuitous antisemitism from commonplace looting and brutality of the soldiery. Also, the application of the term "pogrom" in the accepted sense of the deliberate lynching of Jewish civilians could not be applied to the great majority of the incidents which occurred.[31]" Thee is also OR such as this phrase "the latter sites do not appear in the Anglo-American Investigating Commission's Morgenthau Report, as locations where significant "excesses" occurred during the war.[26]" which appears to be an attempt to disprove what another source wrote.Faustian (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Having a different interpretation of the sources doesn't require any dishonesty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Darouet, Encyclopedia Judaica ("EJ") is legitimate source, but it does focus on a Jewish point of view on the subject matter, there are sources that describe the events in a different light. Thus, I don't feel that emphasizing EJ in the lead is the correct approach here, because it my be considered as one-sided. In any case, I am willing to change my vote to follow SMcCandlish's suggestion, I think that it is fair. --E-960 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that promoting EJ by name in the text of the lead (rather than citing them quietly) is inappropriate (both because EJ it has nothing to do with the Blue Army, and for WP:UNDUE reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Having read the article for the first time earlier today (and made one minor edit), I think the part about the BA's anti-Jewish violence in the lead is far too long. It's also not very well written as well as being misleading. First of all, talking about whether or not the officers knew what their soldiers were doing may be worth doing in the Controversies section, but all that really needs to be mentioned in the lead is the fact that the BA was responsible for attacks on the local Jewish population. The text also currently makes it look as if the Morgenthau Report was commenting specifically on the actions and motivations of the Blue Army when this is not the case. And going back to talking about what the BA did on the Ukrainian front after mentioning their role in the subsequent Polish-Soviet war is also disjointed. You could say all that needs to be said much more concisely and coherently. Ivanevian (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Everything that needs saying in the Controversies section could also be done much more concisely and clearly. It's currently a badly written mish-mash of information that either condemns or exonerates the BA, without having any coherent structure or conclusion. The number of Jewish victims of BA violence is possibly as many as 500 but possibly as few as 5 (and either figure is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the total number of people who were killed in the war that was going on at the time - 250,000 casualties on the Polish side alone during the same period). The size of this section is hugely disproportionate and completely unjustified based on the number of victims, whether you happen to believe the maximum or minimum numbers. If you remove the repetition and waffle you could easily reduce it to 50% of its current length without losing anything vital.Ivanevian ([[User

talk:Ivanevian|talk]]) 22:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(briefly, for now): Thank you for the input, newcomers. Firstly, the figure of 5 was from a single incident and the source doesn't state that this was all that the Blue Army killed:[3] which only mentions the Blue Army in this way: "The worst offenders are soldiers, and the worst soldiers in this respect are those of General Haller's army, which was largely recruited in America". I suspect it may be another creative interpretation (as was done with Encyclopedia Judaica) and this sentence should be removed. As far as trimming stuff - the entire section about BA not being involved in the Lwow pogrom can probably be reduced to two sentences, with details in footnotes; no need for the lengthy explanation. That would eliminate much space about this issue. Also, the section was somewhat bloated by the fact that pro-BA editors were placing exonerations, such as a lengthy discussion of a Polish soldier killed by a Jewish tailor, or the fact that Jews participated in Ukrainian military units, that border on OR. If the article just straightforwardly described what was done, where, with figures and with at most a sentence or two of explanations for why it happened, it would be a lot shorter. 500 Jewish victims (these are killed, not injuries) plus a lot of looting and destruction, rapes, etc. is quite noteable, given that probably no official Polish military unit killed as many Jews and that it has earned this unit a very prominent place in Jewish memory. Making these changes would probably reduce the section to Faustian (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I will add that if all effort devoted to removing information, had instead gone towards building up other parts of the article, there wouldn't even be a question of balance here.Faustian (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It currently looks like several editors have added often contradictory information in an uncoordinated way. The paragraph in the lead should be reduced to a short sentence, and the Controversies section really needs one person to go through it as neutrally as possible and just put all the essential elements together in a structured way: (1) the incidents and where they occurred (2) the numbers of victims (3) responsibility: was it just rogue elements of the BA, or rogue elements with the leadership turning a blind eye, or officially sanctioned (4) what motivated the violence (as briefly as possible and without trying to excuse what happened) (5) the issue of wrongful or exaggerated accusations against the BA. I don't agree with your statement re: restoring balance. Based on the number of victims, the paragraph in the lead and the whole Controversies section are both far too long. Period. We should also avoid sweeping generalisations along the lines of "the BA went to Ukraine and attacked the Jews". These guys were there to fight a war - a very brutal war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. The anti-Jewish violence is important to document, but let's keep things in proportion. Ivanevian (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead about the Polish-Soviet war also exaggerates the contribution of the BA. Let's keep that in proportion too. Ivanevian (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Generally agree. One reason for the bloat is that some editors have insisted on providing "justification." The info in the lede could be one sentence: "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front the Blue Army stood out for the level of antisemitic violence perpetrated by individual soldiers acting on their own initiative but with the knowledge of their officers.[1][2][3]" This described notability (sources point out this unit specifically as "the worst") and fact. But, someone added that Jews fought for Ukrainians (as justification) which can briefly be mentioned in the appropriate section but doesn't need to be in the lede. And so what ought to have been a single sentence became a short paragraph.Faustian (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur in general with Ivanevian's points above, under "Having read the article for the first time earlier today (and made one minor edit), I think the part about the BA's anti-Jewish violence in the lead is far too long. It's also not very well written as well as being misleading...", and "Everything that needs saying in the Controversies section could also be done much more concisely and clearly ...". I've not been meaning to suggest no copyediting and trimming needs to occur, only that the urge to purge the controversy from the article entirely would not serve our readers well. That said, while it's true that the casualty numbers in the incident were low, that's not entirely the point. The targeting of Jews in particular has been seen (by external RS) as significant in and of itself, and it's not really WP's place to judge whether something should be considered significant by sources, just to report that it is. By way of analogy, Brandon Teena was just an individual drop in the bucket in the last century's history of homophobic and transphobic violence, but that doesn't make that individual and what happened to them less notable. Speaking of which, we might want to consider that there are enough sources, pro and con, on this controversy that it is itself notable and can be WP:SPLIT. This would allow the present article to be focused on the unit and its history, instead controversy surrounding part of that history. I'm not proposing the split in mid-discussion; if it's seen as a reasonable idea, I think that should be a separate thread, and I'm not necessarily advocating it, just suggesting that it's a potentially viable approach. As I see it, there are two problems at issue here: Whether POV/OR is being used with regard to the sources, and whether there's an inappropriate focus on the controversy in an article that isn't really about that, but about the unit. A split would alleviate the second problem and allow a less clouded examination of the first. A potential downside of the split would be "ghettoizing" the article on the controversy such that it had even fewer watchers would be easier to skew, and/or even more prone to editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
User Darouet, pls refrain form making changes to the sections covered in the RfC, while the discussion is still in progress. Let us agree on the right approach to this issue, instead of making out of place edits individually, while the debate is still going on. --E-960 (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just an quick note, based on user Faustian's comments. We need to refrain from using terms like "stood out" or "notorious" that's WP:PUFFERY. Also, a good check of what the sources actually say about the violence is needed, especially in reference to rapes, destruction and abuse to make sure they actually relate to the BA, and what is written in the source is not overstated in the article. --E-960 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources point out this unit as having been the worst in terms of this violence. What wording do you suggest?Faustian (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact: The Morgenthau Report does not even mention the Blue Army specifically, except for one mention of Haller's Army, in the following text:

The worst offenders are soldiers, and the worst soldiers in this respect are those of General Haller's army, which was largely recruited in America, and next to them the Posnanians or German Poles. So the real Polish soldier is the least guilty, and the most are the soldiers who come from the educated, progressive countries, especially America, which has been the first to protest against these excesses.

Correct me if i'm wrong. The text for the report that i am using is here. SageRad (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be right. Furthermore, including the Morgenthau report in the lead is of dubious benefit: there are commentaries by professional historians in the last ten years. Those perspectives may be more relevant to a contemporary reader than a political document authored a century ago. -Darouet (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Though I would say that what the report actually does say about Haller's army is interesting, should replace what we have now, and definitely be in the article body. -Darouet (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. For this reason the phrase in the article"The Morgenthau Report estimated that the total number of Jews killed did not exceed 300, with only the Częstochowa incident attributable to Haller's soldiers, in which 5 Jews died due to the violence", referenced to the Morganthau reports, ought to be removed because it's clearly a case of original research.Faustian (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Other things may be supported by other sources. I was just getting to the bottom of what the Morgenthau Report actually says. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Faustian, pls do not apply the red-herring tactic to this discussion. That statement you quoted is not original research — the Częstochowa incident talked about in the Morgenthau Report, dated 27 May 1919, is that same incident the BA was involved in. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is original research. The report didn't claim what you claim it did - that Morgenthau report conclude that the Blue Army was only involved in Czestochowa and this that it only killed 5 people. That's your original research. It wrote this about it exactly: "he worst offenders are soldiers, and the worst soldiers in this respect are those of General Haller's army, which was largely recruited in America, and next to them the Posnanians or German Poles. So the real Polish soldier is the least guilty, and the most are the soldiers who come from the educated, progressive countries, especially America, which has been the first to protest against these excesses" Review wikipedia policy: [4] Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. . This needs to be removed and would help trim the section. Faustian (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Faustian, the primary issue here is that of WP:COATRACK (as noted earlier in this discussion), so excessive detail from both sides will be trimmed. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus for trimming information about what BA did, vs. trimming excuses or OR. That is, several people want the section trimmed but that doesn't mean we get rid of info about what the Blue Army did. It could mean we get rid of OR statements like the above, and various other attempts at making excuses that Blue Army apologists placed in the section, that make the section too long to some people's taste.Faustian (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Faustian, pls see some of the vote comments, I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion. Important note — pls remember that depth of detail also constitutes undue weight.
  • Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, I'm worried that your approach is extremely one-sided. By saying "trimming excuses" — shows that you are only interested in highlighting only your views on the issue. It would seems that the objective is to remove the causes. Like I said, to be balanced the article will be trimmed equally on both sides. --E-960 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Those comments stated that the issue was being discussed at too much length, not that there was too much information about the Blue Army's crimes. Currently in the section there are sentences describing Jewish participation in Ukrainian military units, taken from sources that do not blame these actions for the pogroms by the Blue Army (thus, original research), stuff about a Jewish tailor, a sentence of original research from the Morganthau report, and en entire subsection devoted to something the Blue Army didn't do - the Lwow pogrom. All of this can be removed and the section will be trimmed by about 50%, without removing any of the referenced information about what the Blue Army did do. I wonder what SMcCandlish ☺ thinks? As for your comments about my approach, you have already been caught dishonestly misrepresenting a source by typing the opposite of what the source said comment here). If your goal is to remove as much negative info as possible, let me also remind you that if too much info is removed from this article, this topic is notable enough that a separate article based exclusively on the Blue Army's pogroms can be written, with a redirect from this article onto that one. Doing so may, indeed, be an acceptable compromise on this issue. So the issue isn't - can we remove negative information from wikipedia (because you can't) - but how can we make this article the best that it can be. Faustian (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Since I was asked: It does seem a bit odd to dwell on what the unit did not do, and that could raise OR or POV concerns. I don't have all these sources at hand, so I don't know if any have mentioned Jewish combatant participation on the other side as a potential rationale for the pogromming. If none of them do, that would seem to be original research (namely novel analysis).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☺, By removing the section about the Lwow pogrom where BA wasn't (one sentence in the body would suffice, to merely say BA was accused of this but it wasn't there), and original research about Jews in Ukrainian military units (I will have to review to make sure this isn't mentioned as a rationale), and trimming stuff about the Jewish tailor, we can shrink the controversies section by about 50% without removing any info about what the BA did do. What do you think about this approach?Faustian (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  SMcCandlish ☺, my concern is that the sources used by Faustian do not focus on the BA. By that I mean that they literally devote no more then a sentence or two to Haller's troops. As an example, it's like taking a brief statement about the US military in Afghanistan that says "US military bombed hospitals, weddings and funerals" then argue this needs to be in the lead section of the article. Such an approach would not be accepted in any other Wikipedia article, with out a description of the surrounding circumstances. Unfortunately, I do feel that topics related to Eastern European history do not receive the same objective scrutiny and there is a potential unconscious bias involved. Even when talking about what the BA did not do, it's clear that they were accused of things they did not commit and a source which focuses entirely on the BA actually raises this issue. Contrary to Faustian's demands, such a statement should stay in the article and the gross over-generalizations removed. Other users who voted echoed similar concerns in the discussion, this leaves Faustian and Darouet as the sole editors who continually keeps pushing this POV. I see the issue as quite clear in how the article should be reviewed. --E-960 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Notable enough? Faustian, all those sources you and Darouet cite barely care to mention the BA. None of the books cited in this article section devote more then a sentence or two to our topic, and make sweeping generalizations without providing any detailed descriptions to articulate their claims. How about using a book that has at least a chapter on the BA? In any case, I would prefer to include input form the other editors who voted, and who have not displayed strong POV regarding this topic. --E-960 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Length of discussion within a reliable source is not a test about whether info ought to be included.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend that we develop and agree on a strong text here at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) before correcting the article main text. Hopefully SMcCandlish you won't mind our consulting you, since you probably don't have a dog in the Polish nationalism fight. E-960 I do think we have a number of good, modern books that describe the BA within the context of the post-WWI struggles for Polish independence and anti-minority violence. Those include:
  • Prusin, Alexander (2005) Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920.
  • Fink, Carole (2006) Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and International Minority Protection, 1878-1938.
  • Michlic, Joanna (2006) Poland's threatening other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present.
We can also continue to look for or check existing references to peer-reviewed, academic journal articles. In the section on anti-Jewish violence, we should remove three sources that date to 1923 - the very time of these events almost a century ago. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for a fair compromise, and since there is a RfC Closure Request back log, this gives us time to review the sources cited. So, no rush. As suggested by some of the editors who voted, the section is poorly written from a structural point of view, so it will need major work to bring it up to Wiki standards on several levels. --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Darouet, I started to review some of the sources you listed. I'm already having reservations. For starters, Michlic, Joanna (2006) Poland's threatening other states that the BA committed the Lwów Pogrom, which can be considered a fringe view, simply because the army was not even transferred to Poland yet and were fighting in France (looks like Michlic simply recited Hagen). Also, the books you listed show up in Google Books under the Judaic studies series category — now, in every respect they are legitimate sources, but the vote in the RfC highlighted the fact that there was undue weight and coatracking within the article, so this focus on just that one issue will be reduced (as an example — you yourself noted that there should be more about Ukrainian casualties). Finally, during the RfC a vast majority of editors voted for Options 3 and Option 1 commenting on the fact that there are legitimate issues related to undue weight. In any case, the all comments provided during the vote will be used to guide the revision, not just the comments from of the most vocal editors. Anyway, back to reviewing those sources. --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We should also revisit the issue of Lwów Pogrom responsibility. I'm not saying that the BA did this, but I've seen a lot of historians write that they did. While I tend to believe you, I'd like us to carefully review scholarship so that we either concisely and conclusively show the BA didn't do this (most likely option), or if that's not what we find, then present what we find. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Darouet, when you say "a lot" who are you referring to, we only know of Hagen who initiated the claim and Michlic who cites Hagen in her book. There are government sources and soldier's diaries that contradict any such theory. --E-960 (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Pardon: we have historian Hagan stating that the Blue Army was responsible for Lwów, and Michlic saying the same, citing Hagan. Then we have historian Kay Lundgreen-Nielsen stating that the units were still in France, and researcher Edward Goldstein also questioning the timing in a document that doesn't seem to be a reliable source. -Darouet (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, pls be mindful of the quotes and sources used in the Transfer to Poland section that cover this topic they all say the transfer started in 1919 while Lwów pogrom occurred in 1918. --E-960 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure - all I'm saying is that I haven't seen it demonstrated conclusively that the BA wasn't involved, and we should verify that, for this article and history's sake. -Darouet (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We can also use sources form the Polish version of the BA page (using Google Translate) that confirm the 1919 date, and Cambridge History of Poland along with Kronika Polski. Does Hagen provide evidence to base his claims, otherwise he is in the extreme minority. I think that in this case the burden of proof rests on Hagen to articulate his views. There are a lot of sources which make his claim impossible. It's like citing a book that says we landed on the moon in 1968, how do you argue with that? But, by showing way more sources that say 1969. --E-960 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This is all trying to construct a case using sources that have nothing to do with the BA, to disprove that they weren't responsible: it looks like pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Obviously sources stating that "the BA wasn't responsible for Lwow" are excellent. What about good sources, from another tack, that clearly explain who was indeed responsible for the pogrom? That'd also be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a good source, but generally it is accepted that troops who committed the pogrom were irregular formations of Polish army/militia volunteers in the region, hoping to link up with main forces advancing to from the west. By the way, an interesting fact is that the old Austrain army uniforms were also powder blue, so Polish soldiers deserting the collapsed Austrian army would have worn them. --E-960 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Status Update

Just a FYI for all, there is a major back-log of RfC closures, so we have to wait a bit with our turn to have the votes counted for the BA RfC. But, as an unofficial summary since the RfC is expired we have:

  • Option 1: 1.5 votes
  • Option 2: 2 votes
  • Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text

--E-960 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement does not explicitly relate to the Blue Army

After reviewing a quote in the Controversies section based on text from Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920, the following statement was removed: "committing acts of rape, destroying prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues". Below is the text from the book — it in no way explicitly links the BA with acts of rape and the destruction of scrolls, but merely describes the general situation at that time, which includes references to peasants and the socioeconomic factors that lead to acts of violence. Only then, does the source cover the issue the pogroms committed by soldiers. This is clearly a misrepresentation of what the source actually stated.

Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920

The assaults on on Jews in the borderlands also took place within the context of intense socioeconomic tension. Polish peasants resented the government's unwillingness or inability to carry out land reforms... 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 — Poznań regiments and General Josef Haller's army - especially earned the reputation of notorious Jew-baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwów district, and Grodek Jagielloński. The anti-Jewish zeal of these soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznań 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

--E-960 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed and RFC'd. It was determined that the quote does reflect the source: [5]. Please do not removed referenced information.Faustian (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It is fascinating to go back and read those discussions. All this material has already been reviewed! And I'm amazed at the number of RfC's this article has gone through to verify relatively simple statements of fact (violence in pogroms against Jews), or remove bogus and unsourced excuses ("Jews tended to be Bolsheviks"). -Darouet (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@E-960: would you mind providing extended quotations from Prusin's book supporting the text, "In some areas, local Jews openly sided with the Ukrainians — Jewish civic committees actively recruited able-bodied men to fight in the Ukrainian Galician Army, and Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian military." I think that the story of the war is obviously crucial to understanding what happened, and I'm trying to draft a text that will take this issue into account. -Darouet (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular instance I think I have to agree with User:E-960. The source does not appear to accuse BA of "rape, destroying prayer books and sacred scrolls" rather it says that these things happened during pogroms. In fact it more or less says "peasants" did this. Also, while there are numerous sources which mention anti-semitic incidents committed by BA, AFAIK there are no sources which accuse it of rape. As such the text is both dubious and WP:SYNTH and I think should be removed.

As to the previous RfC, I don't see it that "it was determined that the quote does reflect the source". The RfC was closed essentially for unrelated technical reasons. Indeed, in the discussion itself, two other users User:SMcCandlish and User:Truther2012 (not to mention that other guy) have both pointed out that including this text misrepresents the source.

It's also inaccurate to claim that "All this material has already been reviewed".

I really see no support for including it here.  Volunteer Marek  05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tadeusz Piotrowski. (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947, McFarland: page 43.
  2. ^ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08257.html
The RFC was closed with the specific comment: "The statement does properly reflect the source." [6]. User:SMcCandlish initially felt that it did not, but his last comment - made after I provided the full paragraph - was that it did. His later quote [7]: "That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" [including rapes - Faustian] is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms". When he was further questioned he stated [8] "the laundry list of crimes is immediately followed by naming two (no local) military forces as chief antagonists in this regard. Of course, it would be nice to have a more clearly written additional or replacement source. " User:Truther2012 did not provide an opinion after I included the entire paragraph. Thus, the conclusion was that this did indeed reflect the source. Synthesis would be taking parts from different pages and making conclusions. In this case, it is within the same paragraph. Indeed, to quote McCandlish (again), "the laundry list of crimes is immediately followed by naming two (no local) military forces as chief antagonists in this regard." The Blue Army. Faustian (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That RFC was about a different sentence - about trains - which I'm not objecting to being included. This is a different sentence, which is not supported by the source as it does not make the accusation that the text is making. Likewise I see SMcCandlish agreeing to the inclusion of the sentence about "Jew-baiting", which I also am not objecting too. I am objecting to this particular sentence about rape and destroying prayer books. I really think this should be left out. Also, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL if this sentence indeed characterizes BA's action - the rape part in particular - there should be other sources to corroborate it. I haven't seen such sources. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(adding after ec) I still think it's pretty clear synthesis. It may not be different pages but it is different sentences. The first part describes the general situation. The second part is about BA in particular. You can use the stuff that's particular to BA but you cannot assume that anything bad that happened and is mentioned in the source can automatically be ascribed to BA. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Reread the RFC. It was about this specifically. Scroll down: [9]. Two RFc's were closed. The first one was about the trains. The second one dealt specifically with what we are discussing here. The conclusion in the second one stated " The statement does properly reflect the source." As for the source - yes, the first part described the general situation - "Looting and robbery, therefore, were consistently accompanied by beatings, rapes, and wanton destruction of prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues." The second part is not only about BA in particular but it singles out the BA as one of two units especially known for the general situation (beatings, rapes, etc.). Hee's the full paragraph: ""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." Here's another source that mentions Haller's troops, along with Russians, as committing rapes: [10]. It's not as good as the one we are discussing of course. Faustian (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, E-960 already presented the full quote above so I can clearly see what the source says, and it does NOT say that BA was responsible for these things. In that sentence it is describing the general situation that materialized in wartime. When it does talk about BA it very specifically refers to "Jew-baiting" and the pogrom in Sambor and Grodek Jagiellonski. However, it does not accuse it of the "rapes and destroying prayer books".
While I understand that the discussion here has been heated and extensive, I think it is worth revisiting *this* particular issue again.
The other source you give is a non-reliable primary source. Volunteer Marek  05:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Faustian and Volunteer Marek: note that in his RfC closure, Robert McClenon did state that the statement about rape and scroll destruction by the BA "is not dubious because it is consistent with source, and may be added." McClenon could change their mind, and I understand that we could revisit this again. In my view, the source strongly implies that the BA carried out these acts, as the most notorious perpetrators of them. However, I can see why someone could state that they are not accused directly of it. One option would be to mimic the sources' own framing of the issue: this happened, and the BA was one of the two most notorious units. -Darouet (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a possibility, I'd like to see proposed rewording. However I don't think we can directly accuse BA of these actions since the source doesn't. These are the kinds of accusations where the sources must be approached carefully and with caution so that we don't misrepresent them. Volunteer Marek  06:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::::Darouet (talk I am fine with your version.  Volunteer Marek , doesn't it seem odd that someone would write a laundry list of crimes including rape, immediately afterward and in the same paragraph mention the Blue Army and stated that they were one of two units that stood out for their crimes, and not mean that the Blue Army committed crimes on that laundry list? That's a fairly direct accusation. The paragraph described the nature of the crimes against Jews and then singled out the BLue Army and Poznan regiments as worst perpetrators of anti-Jewish crimes. I don't think that literally having to name them in the same sentence is the standard needed to avoid OR or synthesis. I do agree that the second source I linked to is not RS, which is why I don't include it in the article.Faustian (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, the more I review the text the more I'm concened about your approach. By going back in Talk Page history, it's clear that during the old RfC you did not provide the full text from the sources, but instead took that statement out of context and selected only small cut to fit your need. It's seems you are not approaching this edit in a honest and fair way. Also, your argument that once in the past there was an RfC and it sided with your edit, has no relevance now. Pls note that in our most recent discussion during the vote user SMcCandlish addessed your persistent arguments: "But see WP:VESTED and WP:CCC; there is no such thing as an "established [topic] editor" whose views count for more than those of other editors. Consensus forms and changes (any time, anywhere on WP) based on who cares enough to give their input into the matter. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are also relevant in this regard; many wikiprojects collectively delude themselves into thinking they have the right to control articles they feel are entirely or mostly within their scope," --E-960 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • After looking thorough the Talk Page history, it appears that the text presented by Faustian during the original RfC is as follows: "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 — Poznań regiments and General Josef Haller's army - especially earned the reputation of notorious Jew-baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwów district, and Grodek Jagielloński. The anti-Jewish zeal of these soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznań 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" This clearly shows that the text used to make the case was cut in such a way as to mislead the read. --E-960 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I presented the full test when asked. Here is the diff: [11]. You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty. In response to my providing the full text, it was determined that the text did indeed reflect the source: "That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms". SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ Faustian (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Darouet, just to answer your inquiry about the statement regarding Jewish assistance to the Ukrainian military — the statements are from Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920 page 100 and 108. The short statement reads: "…in areas near the front line Jewish Committies began the mobilization of able-bodied males into the ZUNR armed forces — UHA. In Radzichów and Sambor Jewish officers and civilians made up 33 percent of the gendarmerie; Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian army." and "In the borderlands many Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews accorded an enthusiastic welcome to the invading Red Army." --E-960 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
But that passage did not state that this was specifically a reason for the BA to kill Jewish civilians. It's interesting that when in the same paragraph rapes and Blue Army are mentioned, the statement gets removed because allegedly rapes didn't refer to BA, but here even though Blue Army isn't mentioned at all you are arguing to keep it in. Double-standards motivated by nationalism?Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Faustian, in this context I don't think there's anything strange about it, since the paragraph is written in a general to specific style. The first sentence describes the general conditions present at the time. The second sentence talks specifically about BA and it accuses them of specific things - Jew baiting and pogrom in Lwow (I actually think that should be double checked as well, to make sure this isn't a repeat of Hagen's mistake). Volunteer Marek  15:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, your opinion was not supported by the RFC. I would be happy to open another one. It would be great to have neutral, non-Eastern European opinions. So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Faustian, I'm going to ask you politely to refrain from making statements that can be seen as ethnically offensive, as you did by saying "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" --E-960 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to concur with E-960 here. That was both inaccurate and unnecessary. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC.Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Nobody's bringing up your ethnic background here, are they? What someone's ethnic background is is utterly and completely irrelevant as to the merits of their opinion. I actually find your statement to be fairly offensive and most certainly in breach of Wikipedia spirit. Volunteer Marek  22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content. Speaking of which, you object to this. What about this statement in the article: "The Morgenthau Report estimated that the total number of Jews killed did not exceed 300, with only the Częstochowa incident attributable to Haller's soldiers, in which 5 Jews died due to the violence" It is referenced to this source [13]. BLue Army is m,entioned only once in t his source - "The worst offenders are soldiers, and the worst soldiers in this respect are those of General Haller's aiTny, which was lari^ely recruited in America, and next to them the Posnanians or German Poles. So the real Polish soldier is the least guilty, and the most are the soldiers who come from the educated, progressive countries, especially America, which has been the first to protest against these excesses." It is a more clear-cut case of synthesis and OR that what you believe the passage about rape is. Do you support removing it from the article?Faustian (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, some of us post nationality and other stuff on our user pages, but even if all of us were really clear about it, I'm skeptical that it's constructive to hypothesize an "ethnicist" rationale for why different editors have particular views on this matter, both as a collegiality matter and as a correlation vs. causation matter. And people can surprise you. I'm been a student of Celtic history and culture since the 1980s, and have long supported Pan-Celticism and Celtic Fringe nationalist movements (short of Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorism in The Troubles). But I'm also one of the sharpest critics on WP of neo-"Celtic Twilight" romanticism of these issues, of mis-representation and PoV promotionalism of Celtic-ish new religious movements as "traditional", of anti-English activism toward Northern Ireland topics, of factual distortions regarding the revival/preservation status of surviving Celtic languages, of applying "Celtic" as a cultural identifier to material for which we only have linguistic data, and other non-neutrality problems with regard to that overall category of topics. In my view, it's reasonable for an editor with some tie to Poland to have concerns about this article (I've had my own, of multiple kinds), without it being evidence of some kind of Polish conspiracy. :-) It's more likely to me that what might seem like untoward focus on alleged wrongdoing by a Polish unit, and inclarity whether the unit per se was responsible vs. individuals within it, and how much of this material belongs in the lead, might be more readily apparent to a Pole than to a Candadian or a New Zealander or whatever. Similarly, the patently demonizing anti-British agenda in a couple of Mel Gibson's action-epic films is probably more immediately obvious to someone from the UK that someone from the US, or from Germany (and the fact that this bias, when noticed, is principally a matter of dwelling and focus, not of factual distortion, would in turn be more apparent to an American or a Scot than an English person, who might be inclined to disbelieve entirely in British atrocities during the American Revolution or the pre-Jacobite, English wars with Scotland). There's more than one kind of bias going on with regard to this article, in opposite directions, and the fact that some people will, as a side effect of their cultural background, pick up on one faster than the other doesn't mean the other biases aren't there, or that the one who noticed the one kind of bias is shilling for the other side. Humans do pattern recognition really well, but we're all skewed as to what patterns we detect, and not all patterns we think we detect are genuine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Army_(Poland)/Archive_4&oldid=1255419479"