Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6

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

RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia

Unanimous consensus to use the ref. source.The block-quote may be trimmed.Winged Blades Godric 09:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

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?

Full statement reads, as it is currently displayed in the WP article's reference citation:

Encyclopedia Judaica. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 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… Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. 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. In 1920, during the Polish offensive toward Kiev resulting from the Pilsudski-Petlyura alliance, anti-Jewish pogroms occurred in the region.

Voting options:

  1. Remove - entirely
  2. Keep - but remove the excessive quotation of the entire paragraph
  3. Keep - entirely

--E-960 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This RFC has been heavily re-formatted by Winged Blades Godric 04:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC) at 04:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC).

Survey/vote

  • Remove - entirely---The Encyclopedia Judaica reference source uses language that my be viewed as unbalanced or one-sided, given that other sources cited in this article question the scale and ferocity of the attacks (such attacks were purpotraited by only a fraction of the soldiers and not the entire 68,000 strong army). Thus, to display the entire text form the encyclopedia is questionable (over emphasizing one view of the events), especially that this is not a common practice in WP, to write in an entire paragraph into the reference. Also, the fact that the text was taken down (not updated or replaced) by the website my suggest possible issues behind the statement and possible problems with the reference. --E-960 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep footnote as is, and stop drawing unwarranted assumptions from the fact that a third party removed the encyclopedia article from its website. The article has not, to my knowledge, been withdrawn or disclaimed by the encyclopedia's publisher. Also, please read WP:Requests for comment for information about how to start an RfC properly, something you have failed to do -- once again. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I don't think the reference source is properly set up as well, pls see here, Wikipedia:Citing sources and look at section titled Avoiding clutter. Again, I've never seen in any other WP article entire paragraphs quoted in a displayed citation, how about just a simple link? --E-960 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information is relevant and Encyclopedic. Because the source is no longer on-line, removing direct quotes might lead editors to later question the content of the information in the article and seek its removal. Leaving the direct quote in the footnote keeps the information in, without cluttering the article.Faustian (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove as outdated and suspect. It is not valid sourcing to use old editions (including old e-editions) of sources when newer versions have been revised in ways that invalidate the citation; that's clearly gaming the system. This is especially true of tertiary sources like other encyclopedias, which WP considers only semi-reliable, and never reliable enough for controversial claims or any that involve "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" (clearly the case here), as a matter of clear policy at WP:AEIS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Struck; I misread the sourcing claims. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, what evidence is there that the source is outdated or suspect? There are two editions of Encyclopaedia Judaica, and this is sourced to the second edition (2007). (Page 281 of Volume 8, if you want to be precise—I have a copy.) There has been no third edition, so what reason do we have to believe "newer versions have been revised" in any way, but especially "in ways that invalidate the citation"? Because E-960 says so? Because the Jewish Virtual Library—an unrelated party—removed it from its website for an unknown reason? Perhaps its license limits the number of EJ articles it can host, and it decided that another article was more important than this one. We can all speculate about why JVL removed the article, but the only facts are (1) JVL is not the publisher of the EJ and (2) we have absolutely no idea why the article isn't on the JVL site any more. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    The evidence that the source version is outdated is, obviously, that a newer version was revised to no longer include the material being cited. Why are you even asking that? Encyclopedia Judaica as a source in general is not suspect (beyond the baseline tertiary-source suspicion that WP has for all such works); rather, information that it explicitly removed is suspect, and its removal makes it unsourced. Again, one can't game the system by citing an old version of something that has since been corrected, even if one disagrees with the correction (original research). Either accept that it's unsourced or find and alternative source. And expect that if you do the latter that people aware of the revision of EJ will probably insist on including the fact that EJ removed it, and as indication of doubt and conflict in the available sources. This is nothing new, though maybe it just hasn't come up at this particular article before. Another way of looking at this: We can't say EJ is reliable for one thing (something it said in an old edition) then pretend it is unreliable for something else directly related, namely the later removal of that same material. That's self-contradictory cognitive dissonance, and no different from citing a dubious claim of a death date in a newspaper then refusing to accept a correction published by the same paper a day later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, what newer edition? There are two editions, and the article is from the second edition. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, you seem to have confused the actual source, Encyclopedia Judaica, with the website quoting it, "Jewish Virtual Library." The website "Jewish Virtual Library" removed the entry, for unknown reasons. The original source, Encyclopedia Judaica, has not removed the information. This quotation is from Encyclopedia Judaica. Had Encyclopedia Judaica removed the entry, you would have been correct. But they did not. Faustian (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, I did misread the sourcing claims. Sorry for the confusion! If EJ and other current sources include this, then I support the inclusion here (without the over-quotaton) as sourced and encyclopedically relevant. I've struck my original comment. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ordinarily the "over-quotation" would be unnecessary. In this case, however, it involves information that some editors deem controversial and seek to remove. By including it (in the footnote, so as not to clutter the actual article) this information, no longer accessible on-line, is clear.Faustian (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I would ask that you review the sources and ignore the misleading comments by users Faustian and Malik Shabazz, they try to create confusion, both Encyclopaedia Judaica and Jewish Virtual Library dropped the article, please see the comments made by user Poeticbent just below in the Detailed discussion thread section, I've also highlighted the comment so there is no uncertainty that both JVL and EJ dropped the article (Faustian and Malik Shabazz continue to make misleading and confusing statements about it) .
SMcCandlish, The link Poeticbent posted, with "no matched content", was not to the Encyclopedia Judiaca website, but to the Bureau of Jewish Education Website: [1]. You can see in the corner, "Search the BJE website." One needs library access to use the Encyclopedia Judaica website. For example, there is also no entry found for "Jerusalem" on the BJE website: [2]. Your comment, in addition to including insults, is based on, at best, a mistake.Faustian (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is not known why Jewish Virtual Library no longer features article HALLER'S ARMY. The JVL Source was: Encyclopaedia Judaica © 2008 (according to Wayback capture from 2011). The online Encyclopaedia Judaica has their own Search feature. Results for HALLER'S ARMY revealed "no content matched".

--E-960 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If those with access to the the full EJ find that the article is still there, that is sufficient. Just tag the cite url with a paywall template parameter, per normal, and if we have an archive-url that works, that's great. As for over-quotation: Faustian, your rationale above is the same one always offered for over-quotation. There is no bright red line; it's fuzzy and a judgement call. I think the amount of quotation is unnecessary, and can be trimmed. I won't keel over and die if it isn't. But I've rarely seen a large block quote that can't be compressed with elision, truncation or both. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -entirely Bot summoned. Nothing wrong with it being an archived link, and nothing wrong with the whole paragraph. 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Detailed discussion thread

  • Comment. — Would the books listed at Wayback be available online? The capture from Wayback lists three items in Bibliography: A. Micewski, Z geografii… politycznej II Rzeczypospolitej (1964), index. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Majchrowski (ed.), Kto byl kim w drugiej Rzeczypospolitej (1994), 125; A. Ajnenkiel, Polska po przewrocie Majowym (1980), index. — Is not known why Jewish Virtual Library no longer features article HALLER'S ARMY. The JVL Source was: Encyclopaedia Judaica © 2008 (according to Wayback capture from 2011). The online Encyclopaedia Judaica has their own Search feature. Results for HALLER'S ARMY revealed "no content matched". We don't know why the original article HALLER'S ARMY is now missing from both, JVL and EJ, and I'm not sure if it matters. Poeticbent talk 19:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Andrzej Micewski (1964). Z geografii politycznej II Rzeczypospolitej: szkice. Społeczny Instytut Wydawniczy "Znak" – via Google Books, snippet.
  2. Jacek Maria Majchrowski, Grzegor Mazur, Kamil Stepan (1994). Kto był kim w Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej. Polska Oficyna Wydawn. "BGW" – via Google Books, snippet.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. Andrzej Ajnenkiel (1980). Polska po przewrocie majowym: Zarys dziejów politycznych Polski 1926-1939. Wiedza Powszechna – via Google Books, snippet.
If I can comment on the question by raised by Poeticbent, if a news article is taken down, it usually means that facts, details and wording of that particular article were inaccurate (at least to some extent), and the website took it down. I find it a bit unusual that EJ just removed the page, and after looking for an entry on the Blue Army I did not find anything new that replaced the old page. In any case if the page was taken down, at the very least I don't think that the text should be highlighted to such prominence in the reference citation, perhaps just a link to the Wayback Machine, that's all. --E-960 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop repeating your false insinuation that the article was "taken down". A third party, the Jewish Virtual Library, removed the article from its website. You don't know why. Those are the facts here. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz, either way, it was taken down, and when that happens you can not honestly call it a current/reliable source, especially since you are insisting that the entire statement is displayed in the citation, no justification other then POV pushing, and elevating this outdated reference above others. --E-960 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In any other WP article such a reference would have been simply taken down, unfortunately, here some editors are stonewalling. --E-960 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Precisely my thoughts about your half-truths, insinuations, and out-right lies. "No justification other than POV pushing". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz, what did I say that was not true… was the link not taken down by EJ? So, pls cool it with the personal attacks, ok, and stop saying that these are "out-right lies". Again, unfortunately, many of the facts sounding Polish history in the English speaking world are simply untrue and perpetuate erroneous stereotypes, as with this example of the Anti-Defimation League's CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt who on CNN simply said things that were commpletty untrue about Poland, and after the involvement of the Polish embassy it resulted in an apology from the ADL (here [3]). Similarly, the BA article also carries statements which are questionable and should be de-emphasized at the very least, if not removed all together. --E-960 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. Again. The link was not taken down by Encyclopaedia Judaica because it was never hosted by Encyclopaedia Judaica. As I've written repeatedly, it was hosted on an unrelated site, Jewish Virtual Library, and none of us know why JVL removed the article from its website. So please stop repeating the same lie about the article being "taken down", and keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for you to complain about the Anti-Defamation League. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz, EJ and JVL both dropped the article, read the comments made by user Poeticbent just at the top of this section. Now, are you going to recant you previous erroneous statements? --E-960 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, the link Poeticbent posted, with "no matched content", was not to the Encyclopedia Judiaca website, but to the Bureau of Jewish Education Website: [4]. You can see in the corner, "Search the BJE website." For example, there is also no entry found for "Jerusalem" on the BJE website: [5].One needs library access to use the Encyclopedia Judaica website. Your comment is based on, at best, a mistake. Faustian (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What is going on with all these re-directs to different websites, seriously?? If the source EXISTS shouldn't you be able to just include a link to an active page as reference instead of making excuses to keep text from a page that is no longer available/current. Again, every time you have subject matter about Polish history in the 20th century on English language Wikipedia all practical WP rules to get thrown out, just to keep text that despite being from an "encyclopedia" does not sound very encyclopedic in the tone and language it uses to describe the subject matter. --E-960 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This article has special rules which are only applicable here and nowhere else on Wikipedia—dead links just get removed, instead of keeping them as relics, but here editors just go out of their way to keep pompous and wordy references. --E-960 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2017 (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.

Removed questionable statement

Went ahead and removed a very questionable and sensationalist statement which read "pushed local Jews off moving trains", the source of this statement reads on page 1035, "In the Socialist paper Robotnik of June 8, 1919, a writer reported about the ordeal of Jewish passengers who were brutally dragged off the trains at Łucków railway station…"[1] big difference between getting thrown off a moving train to getting dragged-off at a railway station. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.pl/books?id=SOFkWX8EC4cC&pg=PA1034&dq=haller+pogrom&hl=en&ei=5lIqTaLNDsOblgfG--CXAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=haller&f=false
The statement is on page 1035 - second paragraph on that page, Very often Jews were pushed off the moving trains. It is exactly because of behavior such as yours - removing info - that full quotes are placed in the footnotes, to demonstrate that what is in the article is in the original source..Faustian (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Faustian, what an offensive statement you just made, you are the person who in the the past softened the language in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia page, but on this page you include every sensationalist CLAIM against Poles. How do you explain a so called "legitimate" author (who uses a source in his book, which states that Jews were brutally dragged off the trains) but in the text says pushed local Jews off moving trains), that's called an exaggeration, (just like the ADL example I provided during the RfC of false accusations against Poland), and in a controversial topic it's best to omit sources that include such discrepancies. You have a bias, it clearly shows how you approach Polish history. --E-960 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
E-960, you have a unique view of what, "The block-quote may be trimmed." actually means. It does not mean "hide" content you don't want to be seen somewhere in the footnotes or just eliminate it. The RfC discussion and post-discussion clearly does not support your interpretation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I know you and Faustian want to add as much graphic detail as possible against Poles, but sorry when an original source cited in the book says that "Jewish passengers who were brutally dragged off the trains at Łucków railway station" and the author says "pushed local Jews off moving trains", that's a rather big discrepancy (a deliberate lie, a mistake or whatever), and it's better to omit this statement, instead of forcing it into the article and then accuse others of edit warring, any time there is an issue with articles related to Ukraine you and Faustain jump in to stonewall any change you don't like. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Deliberate exaggerations, just to prove there is outright misinformation about Poland in so called "legitimate sources", the Spanish newspaper El Pais is being sued by a Polish anti-defamation nonprofit for publishing sensationalist and false claims about what happened in Poland during WWII, news article in Polish here: [6]. Perhaps in due time they will also address Wikipedia nonsense like this as well. There is an excellent book on this topic by Norman G. Finkelstein, which discusses this difficult and painful subject in detail here.--E-960 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Claiming that a reliable source misused a reference in a footnote is your original research and edits on Wikipedia can't be based on that. The source clearly stated what it did and we go with that. Thanks, though, for revealing that you are operating from a place of fringe theories in your endorsement of the book (The Holocaust Industry).Faustian (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of veiled legal threats in order to try to hold an article to ransom is poor form, E-960. This very public display of your difficulty with backing down makes for highly uncomfortable reading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, it's you and Faustian who are holding the article hostage, see: WP:OWN — going out of your way to keep every questionable detail in, no matter how ridiculous. Then you launch into the "edit warring" accusations in order to stonewall any new edits. I've read about Wikipedia editors like you, loose networks of editors who push a particular POV on articles, and shoot down anyone that challenges their world view and agenda. --E-960 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's why schools and universities do not allow Wikipedia to be used as reference, have a read, educate yourself, nice little article on the issue: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia [7] and Harvard Guide to Using Sources — What's Wrong with Wikipedia? [8]. You two are doing a great job in discrediting the Wikipedia Project. --E-960 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Soldiers acting on own initiative not in the sources

I have removed the statement in the lead that "individual soldiers acting on their own initiative" carried out these attacks. None of the three cited sources states this, and the Encyclopedia Judaica source, which comes closest, says something different:

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… Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. 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. In 1920, during the Polish offensive toward Kiev resulting from the Pilsudski-Petlyura alliance, anti-Jewish pogroms occurred in the region.

The source states, "While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." That information should not be translated to "soldiers acted on their own initiative." -Darouet (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

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)

Misrepresentations / OR / SYNTH

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

  1. [9] - 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. [10] - 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. [11] - 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. [12] - 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)

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

Faustian, I've opened up a noticeboard discussion here [13] 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"[14] murder, robbery, and abuse - that led to Paris Peace Conference to dispatch a commision for investigation,[15] of this so called army which "especially earned the reputation as notrious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in ..."[16] - and labelled as the "chief perpetrators of these murders".[17] 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[18] 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),[19] 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)

Comparing this article to article about West Ukrainian People's Republic

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)

Section title for Anti-Jewish violence

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[20] 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)

Reordering of "hot" segment

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)

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

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

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)


Current wordcount 735 for violence section, 3271 for article as a whole, so 22.5%. Less weight then before=

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Army_(Poland)/Archive_6&oldid=1057274300"