Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 3

German propaganda re: the Blue Army in Fink, and Haumann on Poland
I'll respond to the stuff on Fink shortly, but really quickly, in regard to this edit. The added text says "The Blue Army constituted a central military support for the rightwing government.". While I get what you're trying to say, this is incorrect. The new government of the restored Polish Republic was Pilsudski/Daszynski, both socialists, not Dmowski. There was no "rightwing government".

In some "rough" kind of way, Haller, the commander of the Blue Army, sort of supported Dmowski (although that's a gross over simplification, more like he didn't get along with Pilsudski, probably didn't care muchfor Dmowski either though) and it may have been true that the French and the British who were suspicious of Pilsudski (both because of the socialist thing and because they regarded Pilsudski as a German agent, which he actually sort of was) thought that supporting Haller, meant supporting Dmowski, hence "balancing" Pilsudski.

At any rate, this needs to be better worded, in particular so that it does not convey the impression that there was some "rightwing government" around at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On Fink. Above Douaret says: "While Fink discusses German propaganda, she does so with ambivalence". No, that's not true. The propaganda was definitely there and the source is careful to note it. And in particular she notes that thing about the German agent and the French intelligence intercepted German communication which explicitly instructed making use of this propaganda. All of this of course does not mean that it was a 100% invention of German propaganda. Pogroms and violence did occur. But the reports and descriptions of these did get passed through a German (and to some extent Soviet) "filter" before making their to the West. And that's basically what she says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fink describes the massive and international antipogrom campaign that followed the Pinsk massacre and Vilna pogrom (whose death tolls were often exaggerated, but whose existence was wholly denied by the Polish government). Fink continues,




 * So, Fink writes that the Polish government received reports of violence by Haller's soldiers against Jews in Poland. Fearing diplomatic repercussions, the government "scored" what they called Germany's "transparent" attempts to disgrace them, and broke a cease-fire to launch a bloody offensive, seizing territory in Galicia. The Polish government blamed violence on German agents, and called a pogrom in Czestochowa a "food riot."


 * Why don't you write that? The text you've added instead writes that Poland, motivated to "counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism" (not concerned over diplomatic ramifications, as Fink writes), "noted that many of the alleged antisemitic tracts… were in fact a product of willful disinformation based purely on hearsay and confabulation emanating from Russian and German government sources in an effort to discredit the new Polish Government." In other words, you don't write with the historian's voice, but as if you were one of those Polish government officials almost 100 years ago.


 * In addition to this, someone has just used Fink to claim that the tailor killed by Haller's soldiers was a Bolshevik sympathizer, though she says nothing of the kind. While you were quick to remove Haumann's commentary based on your own speculation, and have twice now insisted on including unsourced text in the lead essentially making the case for the famous Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy, you let the misourced statement about the tailor stand. -Darouet (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yo, do you have any text or sources to support:
 * The lead statement that Blue Army violence against Jews was "partly caused by the fact that some Jewish political parties and organizations in Galicia found themselves sharing ideological platforms with Bolshevik Russia, as well as with revolutionary elements in Western Ukraine and republican Germany" ?
 * Your contention that Haumann is wrong when calling the Blue Army an important source of support for a right wing Polish government promoted by allied powers ?
 * Also, given that you haven't responded to Fink's text above, I presume you agree with it? Or what is your position on her description above? -Darouet (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On Haumann, I am unable to see the supposed text in source which would support the text in article. But the claim itself is extremely dubious. Actually, it's just false. How can the Blue Army have been a source of support for a "right-wing government" when there was no right wing government? The provisional government set up in November 1918 was created by one socialist, headed by another, cabinets were staffed mostly with socialists (with some left wing agrarians thrown in) and the very first policies the government started enacting were socialist in nature. Oh, and the actual "strength" of the government - both in terms of popular support as well as the number of armed men it could put out on the street - consisted of the structures of the Polish Socialist Party. It's true that National Democracy did pretty well in couple of elections after 1920, but they never got to form a government and in any case, by that point there was no such thing as the Blue Army.
 * So either the source is talking nonsense or the source is being misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On Fink, I'm having trouble understanding you. Apparently you object to this edit, not because it's not supported by the source or anything (though you were claiming that earlier incorrectly, IIRC) but because... you think I should have written something else. I've provided the page number so there shouldn't be a ny problems here. You quote something else from Fink which... already is in the article. Again, I don't see your point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First you didn't respond to my question about the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy: do you have a source for the lead sentence you insist on including? I'll remove that for now, unless we can source it.


 * Second, pages 116-7 of Fink make absolutely no reference to Haller or the Blue Army whatsoever. The pages I quoted above, 226-30, do. Why are you citing pages that you can't even demonstrate supports the article text you want to add, and also make no mention of Haller's Army, the subject of this article?


 * Thirdly, it's not my responsibility to look up the Haumann reference for you (I think you can even find it online), and needless to say, your unsourced expositions on Polish can't be the basis for article text, whether they do or don't contradict reliable sources. Here, they do. Haumann is probably referring to the government's nationalism and territorial ambitions. I'll find the text for you so that you can see his description for yourself. -Darouet (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant text is about Tattenbach which is clearly discussed in those pages, along with the wider context which is what this para is about.
 * And your pushing of Haumann simply raises WP:REDFLAGs. How can have something supported a "right wing" government, when there was no such thing to support. So yes, it is your responsibility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, your changing the text requires that you actually read it. As to Fink, the fact that you think you can use text that doesn't even mention Haller, and that you don't understand anyway, means that we're going to need to get outside help to resolve this. -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are references in the text to back up the statements that many of the claims were indeed exaggerated, and that's the complexity of this article — there was violence, and there were exaggerated reports published. Both these facts are true. --E-960 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Pinsk massacre and Vilna pogrom happened while the Blue Army was on their way from France, and that's a perfect example of an instance where the BA was blamed for something and they weren't even there. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Violence against Jews because they supported Bolshevism?

 * The references used in the text don't refer to the Blue Army, so they constitute original research, which isn't acceptable here. You may be right about the Pinsk and Vilna pogroms - Fink (whom I quote above) says that Haller's Army committed atrocities after news of Pinsk and Vilna had created an international scandal for Poland.


 * E-960, in this revert you added text to the article claiming that the BA's violence against jews was caused in part by Jewish allegiance to communism, Ukrainian and German causes. You didn't provide a source for that allegation. What is your source? Unless it is very well documented this allegation would be highly insulting and inflammatory. -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The previous editor who insisted on including this text, COD T 3, was indefinitely blocked, and Faustian also objected to this text for a long time, as original research, if not offensive. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Darouet, I'd like to remind you — that it was you who just recently removed the "Bolshevik" reverence, along with "5 Jews killed" and the Carl Finke reference source backing that text. All this was long standing material. You keep edit warring with Volunteer Marek, removing various sources and statements. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to add one more thing, in this source which details the Stanislaw Dziadecki incident, there is a statement which does say that Jews were linked to Bolsheviks, or in other words "suspected" of supporting them. --E-960 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , there has never been "consensus" for either of these pieces of text, and even if there had been, consensus would not be enough to maintain content in the absence of supporting sources.


 * I have not removed the Fink or Wakounig references: they are still there, and they don't say that the tailor killed by Haller's Troops supported Bolshevism.


 * Fink writes, "In Czestochowa, on May 27, after an unknown assailant wounded one of their comrades, Haller's troops joined a furious local crows in a three-hour rampage through the Jewish quarter, leaving five dead and forty-five wounded."


 * Wakounig writes, "The pogrom started on 27 May 1919 after a Polish soldier named Stanislaw Dziadecki, was wounded by a bullet, while soldiers of General Haller's unit claimed he was actually killed. A Jewish tailor was suspected and killed by Haller's and Wielkopolska soldiers and civilians on the street, which led to the looting of Jews' housing and shops… the pogrom caused at least ten deaths and dozens of injuries."


 * You wrote, "A Jewish tailor who supported the Bolshevik cause was suspected, and killed by civilians and Haller's soldiers on the street…"


 * Do you see how you've invented that straight out of thin air - and that neither provided source states the tailor "supported the Bolshevik cause?, why are writing the tailor supported Bolshevism when the sources don't say he did? -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Darouet, this is an edit from March 14th, the last edit made by other users before you went on a campaign of changing the text in the article. Please notice how it says "a local Jewish tailor who sympathized with the Bolshevik cause was suspected of committing the attack". This is a long standing statement that was removed.  --E-960 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi E-960, yes you've mentioned that you think this text represents the "consensus" several times, but I've pointed out that's not true, since it has long been contested. Meanwhile, you didn't answer my questions, above, about how sources don't support the text. Can you respond to my last post above how the sources you're saying are important don't mention jews supporting the communists, and don't say the jewish tailor supported bolshevism? Also, can you tell me what one of Wikipedia's core policies, verifiability, means and how you believe it pertains to this case? -Darouet (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ? -Darouet (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not address the subject of "consensus". The main issue raised here is that long standing text and a reference source were removed. In the this source there are repeated statements saying that jews were "suspected" of supporting Bolshevism and as quoted here: "In fact, some of the Bolshevik commissars in Pinsk were form a Jewish background". --E-960 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wakounig writes, "The pogrom started on 27 May 1919 after a Polish soldier named Stanislaw Dziadecki, was wounded by a bullet, while soldiers of General Haller's unit claimed he was actually killed. A Jewish tailor was suspected and killed by Haller's and Wielkopolska soldiers and civilians on the street, which led to the looting of Jews' housing and shops… the pogrom caused at least ten deaths and dozens of injuries." It says that the tailor was suspected of wounding Dziadecki, not suspected of being a Bolshevik. By contrast, you wrote that the Jewish tailor "supported the Bolshevik cause." I don't see that in the text. Is it there ? -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, why do you think the Jewish tailor was a Bolshevik? Also, what does Pinsk have to do with Haller's Army? Above you said the Blue Army was still in France during the Pinsk pogrom. -Darouet (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Joint effort to review and re-edit the "Controversies" section
In response to the RfC, I would recommend that perhaps the section should be jointly reviewed and re-edited, there are many repetitive statements supporting both sides of the issue. It might be a good idea to have have a review of the text. User:Darouet has his issues, that he would like to tackle, but on the other side there are repetitive statements like this one "After arriving in Galicia, soldiers engaged in acts of violence against the local Jewish populations." that keep repeating the same message. So, I would suggest that together with User:Darouet, User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus this article is looked over by serious editors to finally get it right and prevent future disputes that carry on for months. --E-960 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't commit to this right now but would be willing to participate later. Most importantly, we need to re-examine the paragraphs and text segments that explain why jews were targeted by the Blue Army. It's not clear to me right now that we are accurately reflecting what sources say about this. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. At this point E-960 given our conflict so far, it would be good of you to hold off on controversial edits and proceed by discussion first. So far the RfC above suggests that your views may differ from those of community consensus. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have reservations about how the events are presented in this article. You have to remember that in war the lines are blurred and to label the BA's actions as anti-semitic (purely based on an abstract prejudice) may be inaccurate. Even today, in eastern Ukraine, we see video clips of abuse and mistreatment, with civilian mobs and paramilitary groups rampaging through a city. But, if the targets were Jewish would we call it anti-semitism? This article includes both interpretations, viewing the events form a more Jewish perspective of being attacked, but there are sources which view the actions in the totality of the conflict which was as any other before and after. That's why we should make the effort to review the text. --E-960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should these two statements linking Jews and Bolsheviks appear in Blue Army (Poland)?
The Blue Army participated in violence against Jews in Poland in 1919. Should these two bolded statements linking anti-Semitic violence to Jewish Bolshevism appear in the article?


 * 1) (From the lead): "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front elements of the Blue Army were involved in acts of violence directed against segments of the local Jewish population, partly caused by the fact that some Jewish political parties and organizations in Galicia found themselves sharing ideological platforms with Bolshevik Russia, as well as with revolutionary elements in Western Ukraine and republican Germany." relevant diff
 * 2) (From the body): "A Jewish tailor who supported the Bolshevik cause was suspected, and killed by civilians and Haller's soldiers on the street…" relevant diff

Talk page discussion is found above. -Darouet (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * No: the first statement in the lead excuses the killings, alleging Jews were killed for their political allegiances; the statement has been unsourced and contested since April 2014 or even earlier. The second statement is (mis)sourced with two books, neither of which say that the Jewish tailor killed was a Bolshevik, or suspected of Bolshevism; the statement has been contested since May 2013. -Darouet (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No because 1) unreferenced 2) reasons for BA anti-semitism were more complex, and I don't see why this one explanation is stressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the first one, I see the sentence as trying to summarize the paragraph in the Controversies/Anti-Jewish violence section, which begins with "Soldiers and officers who targeted ..." There is no citations in the lede because it's a lede. I can see this sentence being reworded however to better reflect sources. On #2 I'm going to say No like Darouet and Piotrus above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * '''No per previous. MQoS (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No No specific reference, no inclusion. Lucutious (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The intro paragraph. Please note that in the Controversies section we have referenced material confirming that Local Jews did assist Ukrainian military and supported the German authorities "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."  Thus, such a summary is appropriate for the intro section. --E-960 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No because i don't see good sourcing for the bold text. It looks to be pushing of an interpretation into the article. If can produce good sourcing to support the claim, then it should be considered as an option. Until there is sourcing for the hypothesis, it remains original research or synthesis. SageRad (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that i was called here by a bot. I had no involvement in this page prior to that. When i was called by the bot, i learned about the topic to the best of my ability and read some of the previous discussion on the talk page, and i think the statements are not supported by sources, and their inclusion would give the reader a wrong impression about the nature of the killings, as per the sources provided. SageRad (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Every person who was called by the bot agreed with you. Of the two editors who commented without bot summons or prior activity on the page, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also agreed with you, but LavaBaron did not. -Darouet (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep While there may have been greater complexities involved, I don't see that as a reason for exclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
, "greater complexities" were never a reason for exclusion - the reason was that the text has no sourced material supporting it. Do you really believe that we should state that a Jewish tailor, or Jews in general, were killed by the Blue Army because they were Bolsheviks, when we have no available information stating this was true? If you do believe we should, why? I am surprised, since the text is unsourced, and you're the first outside editor arguing for its inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Darouet, I would like to ask for a clarification on the proposes removal of the Intro paragraph as discussed in the RFC, are you suggesting to remove the entire paragraph of just the part about the Bolsheviks, I ask because the Controversies section does have sources which back up the idea of Jewish support for Ukrainian and German interests in the region. (Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 100.) --E-960 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC only proposes to delete bolded text that is unsupported by sources. Prusin's text has a lot of material about anti-Semitism in Poland, anti-Semitic violence, and Jewish support for Polish, Ukrainian, or German nationalism/war aims, but it never states directly or obliquely that the Blue Army attacked Jews for any of those reasons.


 * Meanwhile I'm still waiting to see what, who wasn't summoned by the RfC bot, meant by their comment. -Darouet (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Darouet, busy with other stuff at the moment. I'll have to address your questions later. LavaBaron (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned by the push to label the Blue Army as "anti-semitic" as a whole. You have to remember that there is always a cause and effect, anti-semitism is not an abstract concept by itself. Also, the army was big. Did everyone behave that way? Just because there is a lack of English sources that describe the other side of the event does not mean that, it's untrue. Please take into consideration the Tadeusz Piotrowski statement "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." --E-960 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * for over 2 years now, unsourced text in this article has stated that the Blue Army killed Jews both individually (the tailor) and generally because of Bolshevism., you have played an important role in making that happen. Do you have a source with specific text for either of these statements or not? If not, we need to remove the allegations immediately. -Darouet (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, please note the Alexander Victor Prusin source on page 100, it is where the author states that in Sambir and other areas where "pogroms" occurred "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." So, if there is no source confirming Bolshevik support I can agree with that. But, I think you are trying to remove the entire paragraph in the intro section, not just the reference to the Bolsheviks. The statement which asserts Jews support of the Ukrainian army should be kept in the intro paragraph. In my opinion, you are trying to hack away at entire chunks of the article, yet claiming very specific objections like only in regards to the Bolshevik reference. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the text you cite has no reference to the Blue Army. Prusin only has this to say about Haller's army, on p. 103:


 * "Two Polish units-Poznan regiments and General Jozef Haller's army-especially earned the reputation as notorious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski… 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."


 * Yes, Prusin writes earlier, without reference to the Blue Army, that in some places Jews supported Ukrainian or German forces/causes. Prusin does not state that this influenced the Blue Army's violence against Jews, only stating that it "might be explained" by worsened Jewish-Polish relations in America during WWI.


 * What you're adding into the article, then, is original research and synthesis that is very far from the source you're citing. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * if material about Jewish-Polish allegiances is placed into this article, it should be obviously relevant to the Blue Army (e.g. discussed with respect to the Blue Army in sources), and be placed in a background section. I'm curious to know the origin and extent of mixed Jewish allegiances in Poland during and after WWI, and about the origin and extent of Polish military/civilian/governmental antisemitism as well. But, we can't search for information here or there in text that makes no reference to the Blue Army, and then include it to support our pet theories about why pogroms against Jews were justified. That is worse than bad scholarship: it's bigoted and offensive. For wikipedia's purposes it's against content policy, and that alone should be enough for you. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Darouet, I'm trying to compromise with you and be respectful to both views of the events in question. But, you must understand the fact that Jews sided with Ukrainians, and some Jewish communities had political motives contrary to those of Poland. This is a reason why many neutral jews were wrongly perceived as enemies. Please see this quote below that addresses the issue:

The Morgenthau Report listed attacks against Jews by both the regular Polish army and Haller's Blue Army. So, I'm more then willing to compromise, but the fact remains that the majority of the attacks were viewed as political not anti-semitic. You asked for sources, and this is one of them. I'm willing to remove the reference to Bolsheviks, but the fact remains that most of the attacks were political and that needs to be noted in the intro. --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * like you I'm interested in why these attacks occurred, and I think it can be a good part of the article, and eventually, if we're happy with our body text and sources, a part of the introduction. But we can't just include text, now, that is not sourced, or scramble to find unrelated sources to support long unsourced text as if it is a fait accompli, sourced or not.


 * The text you provide above doesn't reference the Blue Army or Haller's Army. Does Piotrowski's book you take the text from ever mention these? I notice that Piotrowski is describing the outcome of the Morgenthau report. If we find a way to relate that report to the Blue Army, is Piotrowski's account shared by other historians? Fink writes that Morgenthau's report


 * "found no premeditated plan in Pinsk or elsewhere but noted 'widespread anti-Semitic prejudice aggravated by the belief that the Jewish inhabitants were politically hostile to the Polish State.'"


 * So her conclusion about what the Morgenthau report says is exactly the opposite of Piotrowski, and she quotes the report itself, which states that there was "widespread anti-Semitic prejudice, aggravated by the belief that the Jewish inhabitants were politically hostile to the Polish State." Neither Piotrowski or Fink mention the Blue Army together with the Morgenthau report.


 * I'm not trying to condemn WWI-era Poland: anti-Semitism is a longstanding historical phenomenon, it is not necessarily universal where found, and Jewish communities may also have their own prejudices. We don't need to damn or defend Poland 100 years ago, or the Blue Army, we just need to describe them. We can collaborate how to best describe anti-semitism in the Blue Army, its extent and causes, and the nature of Jewish community allegiances after WWI in Poland as far as it concerns the Blue Army. But for now, we should take out the unsourced text in the lead and body, and then figure out how to best add material that describes these important things. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Darouet, in regards to the Morgenthau Report, the BA was not separated form the Polish army, but its actions are indeed scrutinized and included. As proof positive, the report covers the Częstochowa pogrom of 27 May 1919. Also, as I noted before I'm worried that this article is painting the entire BA as a pogroming force. Earlier, the statement that "individual soldiers" were responsible for most of the outright excesses was removed, but this statement is backed up by Encyclopedia Judaica . That's why I'm recommending that as an annex to this RfC everyone work together to adjust the text to accurately describe all sources (ones that maximize the impact of the BA and others that minimize it). That's why the issue is so controversial... there are very different views/estimates of what really happened. --E-960 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Summing up the RfC
Of those who were called by the RfC bot and commented here, every contributor -, and  - recommended removal of the unsourced information.

Two more who came to give comments, and, disagreed, with Piotrus recommending removal, and LavaBaron inclusion.

, and I all kept the positions we originally had. VM and E960 both stated that the lead statement is supported by sources, but we've yet to see a single source or text that connects Blue Army violence against Jews to Bolshevism, etc. -Darouet (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Careful. My position was different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to again propose that every one get together and review the controversial sections, if there is no reference to the Bolsheviks then this can be removed, but we still need to adjust the text to correctly present other sources. --E-960 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support that. I'd suggest you start a new discussion section here on the talk page for each part of the article you want to address. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A second look on the Controversies section
As discussed in the final statements of the RfC, I'd like to do a review of the much debated text in the controversies section and add a summary sentence to the intro to provide a bit more context. I'll make the changes in my first edit, and if there are issue which result in a debate we can address them here. --E-960 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Darouet, I'm a bit concerned about undue weight in the article, I understand the BA's actions against local civilians on the front line may be a significant issue from a Jewish perspective, but looking at the issue from a practical point of view, you are only looking at around 500 casualties for 68,500 soldiers. Yes, there were incidents, but not on a grand scale, the article is already heavily weight on the Jewish perspective, and now you are adding multiple sources in some cases 4 in a row to support a single statement, I know of articles where this is not accepted. --E-960 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * E-960 this is the historians' perspective, and the Poles' perspective, not just the Jews' perspective. The Jews killed by the BA were Poles, and most Polish combat soldiers didn't kill Jews the way the BA did.


 * Where are you getting this "individual soldier" culpability from? You've added that wording a half dozen times now, and I've never seen a source for it. It also contradicts every sourced description we have of the violence that occurred. -Darouet (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's noted in EJ: "While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers…" --E-960 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Individual soldiers" has the implication, contradicted by sources, that the crimes were done by lone operators. The sources indicated that groups were committing the crimes, not some lone individuals.Faustian (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what the source says "individual", so lets not disparage the reference. Individual can be understood as individual groups, but not the army as a whole. --E-960 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Morgenthau Report
Article includes this sentence: "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 sourced to the Morgenthau report, whose full text is available on-line here:. Morgenthau mentions the Blue Army (Haller's soldiers) only once in the report. He writes: "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." Mogenthau also estimates that the total number of Jewish victims was 200-300. He does NOT estimate that only 5 Jews were killed by Haller's troops, which is what the sentence here implies, using original research. Indeed, the original research seems to contradict the report's conclusions (how could the "worst offenders" be responsible for only 2.5% of the killings?). I think we ought to simply state what the Morgenthau report says - that the estimated total number of casualties was 200-300, and that the Blue Army were the worst offenders. Any objections?Faustian (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been over 24 hours, no objections, so I've made the change.Faustian (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding earlier, busy time. I think the fact that the "worst offenders" were the guys from America is notable and should stay in.  Volunteer Marek   23:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Marek - and we have modern sources (not the Morgenthau report) we can use to substantiate that. -Darouet (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed also. I think all unique properly sourced info ought to be retained (even if it's shortened).Faustian (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I 3rd that as being relevant info to be retained. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro section
Well, the RfC concluded with a summary that no consensus has been reached on how to reduce the size of the article. Though, it has been acknowledged that there is a lot of extra material that can be cut to make the text more to the point and that the disputed section is of poor quality — needing a general clean up. It's going to be a pain, but it looks like we'll have to go paragraph by paragraph in the disputed sections to improve quality and review each source to bring it up to WP standards. For the controversial statements if we can't gain consensus we'll initiate individual RfCs. I'll go ahead with the Intro section. --E-960 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In general I got rid of the references to "individual soldiers", "numerous segments", "Morgenthou Report" and "local Jewish authorities openly mobilized personnel to serve in the Ukrainian Galician Army". Also, added a note about Ukrainian's fleeing the fighting, passed over the statement in one of the sources cited just trying to located it again, in the meantime — we can add "Citation needed", but for now it's a relatively uncontroversial statement. --E-960 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your version was "However, during it's military campaigns in eastern Galicia the Blue Army was heavily criticized for its conduct against the region's non-Polish inhabitants. Thousands of Ukrainians fled before the army's advance and some of the soldiers attacked local Jews who they suspected of supporting the enemy." It seemed to have minimized the extent of participation in the pogroms and was written in such a way that made might look as if the fleeing Ukrainians were the ones killing Jews.  Removing the Morgenthau report and local Jewish authorities was a good idea, though.  Just keeping the one sentence "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative but with the knowledge of their officers attacked numerous segments of the local Jewish population" would probably be sufficient.  As shortened version might be "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army attacked numerous segments of the local Jewish population.Faustian (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is no longer valid as, because the edit was reverted by another user. Overall, given that there is no consensus on either side,i n this case the article should not be changed. --E-960 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion - first of all, the introduction should be brief and to the point so this section is still far too long. The first paragraph is fine but I would rewrite the rest as follows, removing anything that should really be fleshed out in the "controversies" section (or whatever you want to call it). We should also describe the BA's contributions to the Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war more accurately - they were crucial in the former but not the latter. If you insert a couple of references into what I've written below I really don't see the need for anything else in the introduction.


 * The army was formed on 4 June 1917, and composed of Polish volunteers serving alongside the allied forces in France. After fighting on the Western Front during World War I, the army was transferred to Poland where it joined other Polish military formations fighting for the return of Poland's independence.


 * The Blue Army played a pivotal role in ensuring Polish victory in the Polish-Ukrainian War. Members of the army were also responsible for some of the attacks on the local Jewish population which occured during the fighting.


 * Haller's troops subsequently took part in Poland's defeat of the advancing Bolshevik forces during the Polish–Soviet War.


 * What do you think? If you disagree with the wording, please suggest what should be changed. If you think more detail is needed in the introduction then please explain why. Ivanevian (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your version looks good to me. I would reword "Members of the army were also responsible for some of the attacks on the local Jewish population which occurred during the fighting" as "some members of the army engaged in attacks on the local Jewish population."  This is more direct than merely being responsible for; also not all attacks occurred during fighting.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your re-wording is fine with me - maybe preceded by something like "During this time" to make it a more complete sentence. Ivanevian (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, something needs to be noted about how this specific unit was especially known for the attacks. So, perhaps, "During this time, the Blue Army earned a negative reputation due to widespread attacks on the local Jewish population by some of its members."Faustian (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your second suggestion. Your original wording is much better because it's a clear and neutral statement that nobody can reasonably find fault with - "During this time some members of the army engaged in attacks on the local Jewish population" is all that's needed in the intro. The cleaned up "controversies" section should then start with a brief statement about how members of all the military formations fighting in this war were responsible for (a) general looting and pillaging, and (b) attacks specifically targeted at the local Jewish population - and the fact that the BA became especially known for (b). Then you can follow up with whatever detail is needed.... Ivanevian (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the bits about the BA's role in the Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Soviet wars as above, but left the paragraph about anti-Jewish violence as it is for the time being. Ivanevian (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support Ivanevian's suggested wording with Faustian's first suggestion. We would need a couple RS however to include Faustian's follow-up suggestion on the specific unit being "especially known" for these attacks. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This unit was particularly known for such attacks (that's why it's notable and that's why there's a controversy section). Some brief mention of the notoriety of this unit ought to be made on the lede, IMO.  The specific way it's worded doesn't matter to me.  Quote from one source: " 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."  Source: Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 100.  Another one: .  Morgenthau Report:  "the worst offenders are soldiers, and the worst soldiers in this respect are those of General Haller's army" Faustian (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In the discussion above you've already been questioned about your use of words like "widespread" and it has also been pointed out that while the BA "earned a reputation" for anti-jewish violence it's clear that some of the accusations against them are false and/or exaggerated, including ones that you cite (eg blaming them for the pogrom in Lwow which took place before Haller's army arrived in Poland).


 * It has also been pointed out that you're going out of your way to highlight a few hundred victims of a war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. And while this issue is clearly important to you, that doesn't change the fact that it's actually marginal when compared to the bigger picture.


 * Hence the need to keep things in perspective and refrain from undue focus on this issue. All that's required in the intro section is a simple statement of fact. The introduction doesn't have to tell the whole story. That's what the rest of the article is for.... Ivanevian (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a fact that this unit has such a reputation and that this makes this unit different from other Polish military units. Adding no more than a couple of words mentioning this fact is not, IMO, undue focus. Merely mentioning that its members committed violence, without noting its particular reputation, might falsely imply that there was nothing particularly special about this unit. As for the Lwow pogrom, it was my idea to include the fact that this unit was falsely accused of that particular crime; please do not imply that I was trying to claim that BA did that (I'm not sure if you were doing that). I'm not sure that these activities are that marginal; as we have seen the unit has the reputation as the most violent one against Jews, has resulted in protests against it, etc.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I supprot User:Ivanevian approach to place a less of an emphasis on POV statements and wording — such as the use of the terms like "widespread". --E-960 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Faustian:

Based on sources you have cited the issue of anti-Jewish violence by the BA is clearly marginal.

According to Morgenthau, the grand total of deaths in the whole of Poland during this period "from excesses in which anti-Semitism was a factor has not exceeded 300". Only a fraction of that 300 would have occured on the eastern front after Haller's army arrived in April 1919, and only a fraction of that fraction would have been caused by them. How many would that be? 150? 100? 50? Whatever the number, it's a drop in the ocean during a war in which Polish casualties alone were 250,000.


 * And according to Howard Sachar - which is a reliable modern secondary source - the Blue Army killed between 400-500 Jews and they killed as many Jews as the rest of the Polish military combined. That is quite significant.  Comparing civilians murdered, to wartime casualties, is probably not a good way of minimizing those civilian-killings.  And Mogenthau's report also singles out the Blue Army (and Poznan groups).Faustian (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How much of the BA's "reputation" was based on what they actually did?

One of the other sources which has been cited above (Fink) concedes that many of the anti-Jewish actions attributed to the BA (and reports of anti-Jewish violence in general) were in fact a product of willful disinformation based purely on hearsay and confabulation emanating from Russian and German government sources in an effort to discredit the new Polish Government.


 * And yet the same source also states that the Blue Army was responsible for much violence. When a unit commits many acts of violence, naturally it might get blamed for other acts too, given its pattern of behavior.Faustian (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reports about the extent of anti-Jewish violence during this period were also often greatly exaggerated - eg the number of victims of the 1918 Lwow pogrom were embellished to 3000, when the actual number was less than 200 (according to another of the sources - Michlic - the number was 74).

There's no doubt that the BA were responsible for some of the anti-Jewish violence that happened at this time, but this "reputation" of which you speak is not necessarily based on truth is it?


 * According to several reliable sources it is.Faustian (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Much of the BA's "reputation" could be based on the aforementioned willful disinformation or info that is definitely 100% false (eg their "responsibility" for a pogrom in Lwow that took place 5 months before they arrived in Poland). They were also apparently responsible for a pogrom in Lida on 14th April 1919, even though the first train of BA personnel (carrying Haller and some of his staff) crossed the German-Polish border on 19th April - there are official records of Haller sending a telegram to Pilsudski from Leszno after crossing the border (and receiving one back) on this date. And if you compare the actual numbers of victims of anti-Jewish violence with all the claims of widespread pogroms apparently going on all over the place for a period of 2-3 years it's clear that there must be some degree of exaggeration in these claims.

As such this belongs in the controversies section - which should include a (brief) discussion about how much of what has been said about the BA vis a vis anti-Jewish violence is actually true.

As I said above, let's keep things neutral and in perspective.

My original suggestion was: "members of the army were also responsible for some of the attacks on the local Jewish population which occured during the fighting"

Your original re-wording of my suggestion was "(during this time) some members of the army also engaged in attacks on the local Jewish population"

I think either one is perfectly fine to replace the paragraph of waffle that's there now. Ivanevian (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO, not noting that this unit is particularly infamous for such violence leads to the false implication that there is nothing special about the BA's antisemitic violence - which contradicts what several reliable sources say about it. Adding about 2 or 3 words indicating that this unit was particularly prone to such violence does not add undue weight of this issue to the lead.Faustian (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, with this assessment. Also, a quick note — Wikipedia operates on the idea of a general consensus not Liberum veto (where one user blocks any changes he does not like). This can be seen above, where myself and user User:Volunteer Marek both agree that a statement in the Controversies section is inaccurate, but the change is being blocked by Faustian and his arguments based on a old discussion which now is outdated. --E-960 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "old discussion which now is outdated" was an RFC that had been passed.Faustian (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Two editors now playing at WP:TAGTEAM in order to minimise the BA's reliably sourced violence does not make for consensus: it only makes for WP:POV obfuscation through WP:EXHAUST. I suspect this may need to go to Arbitration. There's a distinct difference between WP:BALASPS and a heavy-handed underplaying of events in the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna, I do not think these two editors are playing "tag team", they merely have similar views, just like you and Faustian have similar views. Does that mean that the two of you are playing at WP:TAGTEAM. As it happens, while I agree with you and Faustian in general on this issue, I also think that on specific details both E-960 and Ivanevian make good points. There's a lot here that's being presented as fact and in Wikipedia voice, whereas in fact it DOES belong in the controversies section, with WP:DUEWEIGHT as that exactly what it is; controversial.  Volunteer Marek   02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * VM, I am by no means suggesting a verbose piece of anti-Polish sentiment being tossed into the lead in order to be provocative. As has just summed up by Faustian in this section, a few words in the lead are not WP:UNDUE. Please remind yourself of the very well thought out, concise evaluation given by the editor who closed the RfC. Also, as a reminder to E-960, Tadeusz Piotrowski is a sociologist whose importance as an authority has been blown a little out of proportion.


 * Also, my apologies to . The allusion to tag-teaming was unwarranted. I've gone through the history of the article again and realised that s/he's done little in the way of editing. I think I looked at the history of this talk page and confused it with the article's history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, pls note that Tadeusz Piotrowski is both a historian and a sociologist who has written several books on history of Poland he specializes in social history of the Holocaust. So, pls do not down play sources, that he's just a "sociologist" in the other language Wikipedias his historical credentials are much better presented. Also, in this case I believe that he was also quoting historian Norman Davies. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrowski is being (deliberately?) misused. The passage, taken form Norman Davies, wasn't about Haller's army.  Moreover, following that passage, on the next page (44) of the book, Piotrowski adds "yet the deaths of fewer than one thousand civilians cannot be relegated to insignificance by comparison with the other Polish losses at that time...and this is also a part of that truth" (my emphasis).  Using Piotrowski to show that these murders weren't a big deal is a misrepresentation of Piotrowski.  It reminds me of how E-960 had misrepresented what Encyclopedia Judaica concluded when based on their entry about the Blue Army he kept trying to insert a statement about merely some individual soldiers committing these crimes.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, more importantly this passage in the Controversies section is a misrepresentation of the actual text from the source as it does not refer directly to the BA: "committing acts of rape, destroying prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues" — as myself and Volunteer Marek both noted in the earlier discussion it should be removed.

--E-960 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You forgot to add that this passage has already passed an RFC: . Furthermore, you are disrupting the conversation about the intro section by bringing up this off-topic issue, which has nothing to do with the intro section.Faustian (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I already confided that I'm for user Ivanevian's proposal, but I'm not sure why you and Harpy started to address the text by Tadeusz Piotrowski here, yet you say that I'm leading the discussion off track? It seems that you only interested in pointing out other editors for misconduct, but ignore your own shortcomings. That's why these discussion lead nowhere, because there is a complete lack of compromise on your side. It seems your strategy is divert the discussion, and when other users address it, you jump on them accusing other editors of carrying on an off topic conversation. --E-960 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, Ivanevian brought up Piotrowski; I merely showed how his work was misused. And here you are adding all this and now making false accusations about me that also have nothing to do with the intro section.  It does show your pattern of derailing discussions.Faustian (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of false accusations - having been absent from Wikipedia for over a month I'm not sure if things have got better or worse with this article since then (although it would seem to be the latter), but I really do take exception to the ridiculous and completely unfounded comments and accusations about me in the discussion above. I have not been playing at WP:TAGTEAM with anybody. I have also not been "minimising" the actions of the BA let alone "heavy-handedly underplaying" them. What I have done is (a) try to tidy up the article in general, and (b) made some perfectly valid points about the disproportionate emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA in the article, while going out of my way to be as neutral as possible. I also have to say that the rather selective use of sources for the "reliably sourced violence" by the BA is not so reliable when you examine the sources more closely - and there are other reliable sources which contradict them, most of which have not been mentioned yet. It really ought to be possible to ask some legitimate questions without being accused of conspiracy. This discussion seems to be going nowhere and further work on this article looks like a waste of time as a result. Ivanevian (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Excessive reference source text
POV pushing, and Undue Weight. The first reference source cited in the article contains in its format the ENTIRE paragraph from Encyclopedia Judaica, instead of a simple citation of the source and a useful hyperlink (as is common in Wikipedia articles).

Question: Should the reference source citation be re-edited to display standard reference information instead of excessively quoting all the text from a one sided source, potentially creating neutrality issues.

The reference source (Update: the link is currently dead and does not display any information) citation currently displays an excessive amount of text on the article page, which reads:

--E-960 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, remove all the extra and unnecessary text, keep basic reference source information and page link.--E-960 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No Information is encyclopedic and referenced. Placing it in a footnote was used as a "compromise" with some editors who didn't want all these details in the body of the article. "Encyclopedia Judaica" is not a "one-sided source" but a legitimate reliable source. Faustian (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Retain as is. The link is dead. In my experience, this is a contentious article and editors question every source they can't see for themselves, even though there is no requirement that sources be accessible online. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MShabazz and Faustian, perhaps the reference should be removed, or updated text form Encyclopedia Judaica found. It is not uncommon that more neutral/objective language is now being used to describe historical Polish-Jewish relations, example in this news article over ADL's apology to the Polish ambassador found here: . --E-960 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for sources to be available online, but if this one isn't online than keeping the details in the article, in the footnote, is more important because it allows readers to see for themselves what the statement is based on. Otherwise some editor in the future might question the statement and seek to have it removed.Faustian (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As has happened many times in the past. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Close RfC. RfCs should not begin with "POV pushing, and Undue Weight." A new RfC should be opened with a concise and neutral question. Note: I've added a link to the page in question on the Wayback Machine. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, you think that this RFC question should have been phrased differently, and I think that some of the statements in this article should approach the subject matter in a more objective way, and strike a more neutral tone. In the end, one thing I'm not comfortable with, is when someone wants to silence or end a discussion because they don't like it. --E-960 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Cancel and create a new RFC.Cancel because this RFC is not neutrally worded. Neutrally word the new RFC.User:CuriousMind01


 * Close RFC due to the wording, I would recommend someone fire up another one if needed who's neutral on the topic/content. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very disappointed with such responses (that side-step the RfC question), simply highlighting the potential neutrality issues is not against WP policy (WP has tags that use those very terms) — I would also like to highlight the fact that I never came across a viewable reference citation which includes the ENTIRE encyclopedic statement in it… this article is the only place. Also, this reference source page was taken down from Encyclopedia Judaica, and I suspect for a reason, as it is highly bias in its tone, and how it presents the facts only from one perspective—to use it the Intro. Paragraph is very, very questionable. --E-960 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Close RFC Per Davey2010, Faustian, and Scolaire. You don't need to reply to every post to restate your point. Read  WP:BLUDGEON.  Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)