Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 5

Sources that describe the BA and antisemitic violence
Editors can use this as a resource to find information on the BA and antisemitic violence, so that we can make sure it is concisely described with neither apology nor embellishment. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Books

 * Fink, Carol (2006) Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and International Minority Protection, 1878-1938. Cambridge University Press


 * Haumann, Heiko (2002) A History of East European Jews. Central European University Press.


 * Korzec, Pawel (1993) Polish Jewish Relations During World War I, in Strauss, Herbert, Hostages of Modernization 2: Austria - Hungary - Poland - Russia. Walter De Gruyter.


 * Michlic, Joanna (2006) Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present. University of Nebraska Press.


 * Prusin, Alexander (2005) Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. University Alabama Press.


 * Sacher, Howard (2007) Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Journal Articles

 * Brykczynski, Paul (2014) Anti-Semitism on Trial: The Case of Eligiusz Niewiadomski. East European Politics & Societies 28(2):411-439.

Discussion
Will look for more sources shortly. -Darouet (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blue Army Publicly Executed a Rabbi
Two sources. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: K-Sered. Edited by Shmuel Spector, Geoffrey Wigoder. NYU Press. 2001.  Pg. 1001. More details here:  "This was mainly due to the rabid behaviour of the troops of General Haller when passing through P. They attacked the Jews, insulted them, and humiliated them by shaving off their beards and sidelocks. An air of pogrom reigned in the town after the martyrdom of the local Hassidic sage Rabbi Chaim Shapira. During the battles between the Polish army and the Bolsheviks in 1920 he went out onto the balcony of his house, wearing a talith (prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries), to pray for heavenly mercy in a time of crisis. His Gentile neighbours reported that during his prayers he had raised his hand as a signal to the Bolshevik artillery to zoom in on its targets. He was arrested and sentenced to death. His execution was public. In his last moments he asked to put on his talith, and he expired with “Shema Yisrael” (Hear O Israel) and “Our Lord is God” on his lips." Will be added to article.Faustian (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Faustian, is this a reliable source? Also, this does not change the fact that editors who voted agree that there is undue weight placed on this on this subject matter in relation to the entire topic. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see the disclaimer used by the website cited by Faustian, for the page provided as reference in the above link. This text is found at the very bottom of the web-page:

This is clearly not an reliable source. This will not be added to the article, Faustian — because the source is not reliable, you don't have a consensus and the latest RfC voters agree that there is too much information on this subject matter already. If you continue with this type of bullying I will request that you are blocked. The issue is undue weight, depth of detail and coat-racking. --E-960 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, a note regarding Faustian's editing approach, and his focus on extreme detail. Every war and every ethnic group has tragic stories — that is the true and unfortunate reality of war anywhere, and highlighting a death of one rabbi, when tens of thousands of Poles and Ukrainians died during the conflict perhaps is not the correct approach. As Tadeusz Piotrowski stated in his book "The scale of Jewish casualties was minimal… fewer then one thousand... when the Polish army suffered 250,000 casualties."    --E-960 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First source is clearly reliable. Secnd source provides details online. Faustian (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the BA did not fight in Płock, which is near Warsaw, and not in Galicja where the army was. Is this another Lwów Pogrom situation? Remember this: "French intelligence noted 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" as noted in our article, the BA was not in every part of Poland at the same time! --E-960 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The public execution of a religious leader is a notable event. First source is published by NYU -  reliable. Second comes from "Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities in Poland, Volume IV."  The fact that there is a disclaimer stating that the translation is not guaranteed doesn't make the source unreliable.  So two RS for this fact.  Your OR is irrelevant here.  I will go ahead and add this information, very briefly.Faustian (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, why do you argue when several editors agree there is too much POV in the article: --E-960 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what people said in the RFC. They complained that the section was too long and can be trimmed.  They did not conclude how to trim it - that is, they did not decide that there was to much bad stuff about what the BA did, rather than this section is too long.  Please stop conveniently interpreting things to support your effort to remove referenced info you don't like.  I will also note that this RFC is so far rather inconclusive.  A previous RFC concluded that the statement of rapes was supported by the source.  You ignored it, and edit-warred to keep it out.  So when you base behavior on RFC when it suits you, but ignore the RFC when it doesn't.  Faustian (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Faustian, I highlighted the sections which talk about undue-weight and POV, not simply trimming the text. --E-960 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Undue focus isn't the same as NPOV. So two editors whom you canvassed from Polish groups claimed NPOV.  That's a minority.  I have trimmed the section a little bit by removing original research - parts that were sourced to passages that did not mention the Blue Army.Faustian (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why the text from JewishGen is not a reliable source merely because of the disclaimer about the translation. It has that template on all the Yizkor translations. It says if there is an issue refer to the original, which is a reliable source. It was published by Yad Vashem in 1989. Do you have any compelling reason to suggest the translation is flawed and thus the original must be consulted? E-960 you're really being silly here IMHO. I have hatted the copy/paste above as it is confusing to have this repeated and looks like people are still proposing support. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is this — the incident happened during a war, in which many people got killed. Historian Tadeusz Piotrowski notes that Jewish casualties were "minimal" in comparison to the number of Poles and Ukrainians killed. Yet, Faustian wants to highlight individual incidents in a conflict that lasted 2 years and saw 250,000 casualties out of which less then a thousand were Jews. That's WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Also, I don't think the BA fought in Płock which is near Warsaw, so I'm not sure about the legitimacy of this source when the claim deviate from accepted facts... it can only be seen as a fringe view. --E-960 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrowski is being (deliberately?) misused. Piotrowski did not conclude that these deaths weren't a big deal.  On the page (44) of his book, Piotrowski states  "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 earlier 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) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Troops of the Blue Army visited Płock twice, in 1919 to fight local social revolt and in 1920 to fight the Red Army. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The rabbi was falsely accused (apparently by the locals), it's not obvious who executed him. It would be helpful to check Koński's article of 1995. Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Two reliable sources attribute this to the Blue Army. Your second link describes the incident but doesn't describe the perpetrator.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrongful Accusations Section
In order to trim the Controversies section I propose that this subsection be removed but that two sentences be retained (I think it's notable that the Blue Army has been accused falsely accused of the Lwow Pogrom) in the controversies section. Accordingly, these would be the two sentences: The Blue Army was wrongly accused of committing pogroms in Lviv on 21 November 1918 and in Lida on 14 April 1919. According to various historians the first units of the army did not leave France until 15 April 1919.

Any objections to this change?Faustian (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * this looks like original research and synthesis: how can sources published in 1941, 1979 and 1998 state that a book published in 2001 is incorrect? It makes more sense to just remove the reference to Hagan here, if everyone is convinced it's wrong. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. I was thinking that, after I wrote this post but was waiting for comments before changing it. How about simply removing the word "wrongly?" - "The Blue Army was accused of committing pogroms in Lviv on 21 November 1918 and in Lida on 14 April 1919. However, according to various historians the first units of the army did not leave France until 15 April 1919."  That way the accusation with reference is there, as is counter-evidence with reference, and the reader can decide, without original research/synthesis.  What do you think?  I could live with simply removal, however I think  it's important to point out the accusation and necessary to state that other historians don't place the Blue Army there at that time.  Also, leaving this in like that would preemt some other editor, in the future, from finding the Hagen reference and simply putting in info about culpability for the Lwow pogrom.  Faustian (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that's better. It still involves some kind of synthesis ("however…"), but I think that's fair, given the sleuthing that editors have done here to show Hagen's work is inconsistent with other publications on troop movements. I think we should ask and  before proceeding. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, , and , in case you're interested in continuing these discussions. -Darouet (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes. Hagen is problematic. I don't have time to think on it at the moment, but there's something awry about inserting content from a source not in keeping with the mainstream just because it exists. It's reading as the 'bad' kind of synth... possibly a WP:WEIGHT issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what's wrong with William W. Hagen as a source? Nothing at his page suggests any unreliability or COI. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with Hagen as a source per se, but trying to work his stance into the section requires some problem solving/subtlety as to how to not turn the size and importance of the section into a WP:COATRACK. That's essentially why there has been so much ado surrounding this content. In the context of the entire article it's placing undue emphasis on the section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hagen is a good source, he simply misidentified the unit - he made a mistake.Faustian (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec with Iryna) For now I'm going to reply quickly, because I'm quite busy with RL work. Basically, this is one of those difficult situations where an otherwise reliable source got something wrong. There's just no way that BA could have been involved in the Lviv pogrom as they were not physically present in Poland at the time. Hagen got this one wrong, for whatever reason (personally I attribute it to the general cluelessness of Western historians about Eastern Europe but that's not really relevant). It's not like the date of the Lviv pogrom is controversial. It's not like the date on which the Blue Army arrived in Poland/Ukraine is controversial. It's not like the period of time separating the two is insignificant. So the source got it wrong.

When this originally came up, I had an extensive discussion with User:Malik Shabazz about it. In the end we both agreed that this was an exceptional circumstance where a bit of original research/synthesis was called for (I guess we can involve WP:IAR here, the discussion is somewhere in the archives) but we should keep it as straightforward as possible. Basically the idea was to stick as closely to WP:NOR as possible but at the same time acknowledge the error in the source.

Wikipedia does have the WP:NOTTRUTH essay which emphasizes relying on reliable sources rather than trying to conduct one's own research. This says that we shouldn't try to "correct" published secondary reliable sources. 99% of the time I think this is perfectly right and it's good advice. I've defended it before in various venues (Jimbo's talk, Village pump, Wikipedia criticism sites) because I think that the last thing we want is for Wikipedians to go questioning secondary sources in pursuit of "truth". But there's always that 1% of the time when applying the guideline mindlessly results in a ridiculous outcome. I think this is one of those times.

So, to wrap this up, I think the best thing to do is either to a) leave out the mention of the Lviv pogrom altogether. This would simply be an editorial decision and then we don't have to discuss the fact that BA wasn't in Poland/Ukraine when it happened. Or b) go with something minimalistic and simple, which I think is what Faustian's original proposal above tries to accomplish.

I like b). I.e. the wording proposed by Faustian at the beginning of this section.User:Volunteer Marek 00:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does Hagen specifically say the Blue Army was wrongfully accused? If so, it doesn't seem like coatrack. If we only have sources talking about dates, I can understand the OR/SYNTH angle. But if an army/group has historically been wrongfully accused of something so horrible as a pogrom, and a RS says it's not true, it seems appropriate to mention it. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, does Hagen say they did it? And thus the "wrongfully accused" is not in the source at all but Wikipedia's opinion? We can't cite him in order to say he's wrong. We have to find a source that says so. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hagen said they did it. But numerous other sources state that Blue Army weren't there at the time that Hagen said they did it - other units committed that crime.  It seems clear that Hagen misidentified the unit there.  Labeling it a mistake could be seen as a summary rather than original research.  But if doing so is deemed unacceptable by the consensus, we could perhaps simply state what Hagen said, then state that the unit wasn't there according to multiple other sources, making the reality clear to the reader without explicitly stating the conclusion that Hagen was wrong.  What do you think of that approach?  This entire isue could be removed, but because Hagen wrote about it there is always the risk of someone adding it again down the line.  Plus, the misidentification seems somewhat notable - Lwow pogrom was in infamous event.Faustian (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the problem with the wording now is that it looks like the reference cited says they were falsely accused. It must be reworded to say for example, "Some historians have accused the BA of the Lviv pogrom"(ref); however, other historians note they did not leave Paris until after the pogroms occurred."(refs) —Мандичка YO 😜 09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR does not in any way prevent basic common sense being applied to editing. It's not just reasonable but necessary for WP editors to evaluate the reliability (including influence, currency vs. obsolescence, publisher reputability, author reputability, and other public and expert acceptance factors) of the sources used in our articles. This is not the same as evaluating the alleged veracity of facts reported in those sources. Big difference. It may affect what facts are included and how, but this is an indirect effect. (E.g. if a paper proposes that there's evidence of life on Europa, we might not include that hypothesis, if the source for it is low-quality. That does not equate to WP judging whether it's true or not, only making the judgement call to not include this until there's better sourcing.) In short, it's fine for us to say "sources X and Y say foo bar, however source Z suggests alternatively that baz quux". This is routine when done honestly and fairly. It's only a problem when this is done in a misleading way, with WP:POV-pushing or WP:UNDUE results (e.g. "Scientific consensus is that evolution occurred without anything like divine intervention, however the Dianetologists are convinced we're all descended from volcanic bivalves brought to earth by the space-god Zeenoo.")  The "however" can't be used to cast undue doubt on reliable mainstream sources, suggest a "balance" among incompatible views that lends weight to fringe idea that don't have much real-world support, nor used to inject WP:BOLLOCKS from weak sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * would you suggest any specific, terse wording for this section? -Darouet (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm too swamped in real-life work to look into this in any detail. There seem to be enough editors' eyes on this to get it done. I note that one party (see comments on my talk page) seem to think there's a WP:FACTION effect happening in the discussion immediately below this post of mine. In the interests of peace, I've suggested that the admin who closed the ANI matter also review these proposals for changes.  Various proposals in previous RfCs have raised NOR/NPOV questions both at one pole to the discussion and the other, so some balance would be appropriate. (I'm not certain it's not already emerging, but an extra set of uninvolved eyes might be helpful.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggested above: "Some historians have accused the BA of the Lviv pogrom"(ref); however, other historians note they did not leave Paris until after the pogroms occurred."(refs)  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can certainly live with this.Faustian (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we replace "accused" with "state they were responsible for" I think this is fine. The word "note" implies that we endorse the latter view, and I think that's OK too.-Darouet (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems fine for me.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should state the dates of the pogrom and the arrival explicitly, as in Faustian's original proposal, or it reads as-if it was weaseling.User:Volunteer Marek 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also a good idea. And I think this section should be titled "Date of arrival in Poland." If Hagan made a mistake, he wasn't "accusing" the BA, and titling the section "Lwow" could give a careless reader the impression that the BA was responsible. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried to implement this on the page. Please everyone make corrections as seen fit. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.User:Volunteer Marek 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. Also, I collapsed the section into the previous one.  Hopefully it's okay.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's been nailed... One observation, however: any thoughts on collapsing the criticism section a little further into a terse title? At the moment, it looks as if the criticism section has had further criticisms removed, or is awaiting expansion. It just strikes me as looking awkward. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps just "controversies" or just "anti-Jewish violence" and placed as a sub-section within the history section.Faustian (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really think "Controversies" is the appropriate name for this section. -Darouet (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of the fact that there's only a controversy (noting the singular), and for the sake of precision, my choice would be the latter. Simultaneously, I'm not really comfortable with placing it under "History". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like three people support renaming, but no consensus to move it into the history section. I'll rename the section but leave it where it is.Faustian (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Blue Army was in 1918 in France. Point. It wasn't in Moscow nor Lwów nor Melbourne. Hagen's statement proves that Western historians lack basic knowledge regarding Eastern Europe (Asia, South America, everywhere outside WASP lands). We aren't oblidged to collect any trash of flat earth type. The same Hagen doesn't however mention the Blue Army in his 2005 article extensively quoted in Lwów pogrom (1918). It seems that Hagen has learned, we don't. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful. Misidentifying the name of a unit involved in an atrocity in one source does not mean that the historian lacks "basic knowledge" or that the source itself is "trash." A Polish historian,Joanna B. Michlic, also blames the Blue Army for the Lwow pogrom, so it's not even a mistake limited to Westerners: . The reason for this misidentification is natural: the Blue Army had built a reputation for its anti-Jewish violence.Faustian (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Joanna B. Michlic is a British historian, who started to study in Poland (which Poland? Maybe PRL?
 * Repeating steretypes isn't academic historiography and the number of believers doesn't make a stereotype true.

Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Her middle name Beata plus the fact that her undergraduate degree was from the University of Lodz suggests that she is Polish. Her book was published by an academic press. Here is her bio: .  It's a simple misidentification, worth noting but not enough to disqualify a source as not being academic.Faustian (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my poor English. I don't disqualify the book, but errors in books should be corrected by authors or editors rather than discussed in Wikipedia. If an author doesn't correct his/her errors he/she asks to be criticised. She quotes reference 13, which I'm unable to see. Any author is responsible for the verification of his/her sources, which (surprise, surprise) may be erroneous.
 * A historian who obtains his/her Dr degree in China and works in China is a Chinese historian, even if (s)he was born in NY.

Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently she got an undergraduate degree in Poland, a graduate degree in the UK, and has taught as a professor in the UK and the US. There are rumors she may have a German aunt, and second cousins in Cuba who like Congolese dancing. The chief editor of the academic publishing house that printed her last book once dated a Croatian. I submit this as evidence in my brief against Joanna Michlic, and will let the experts in WP:RS policies decide what is best ;)  -Darouet (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing a sentence
The section can be trimmed a little by removing the following sentence: "In some areas, local Jews openly sided with the Ukrainians — Jewish civic committees actively recruited able-bodied men to fight in the Ukrainian Galician Army, and Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian military,[20] but most of the civilians remained neutral.[21]." The reference is to this 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

Using this phrase is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, this phrase is being used to build the case that killings of civilians were caused by Jewish participation on the Ukrainian side. The source does not state that. Secondly, the source is being selectively quoted to make this case - on page 101 the same source states: "Nevertheless the ZUNR (Ukrianian) government was disappointed that Jews refused to declare themselves openly for the Ukrainian side. Already in December of 1918, the Ukrainian press threatened that if Jews did not take part in Polish-Ukrainian conflict, they would lose their rights as Ukrainian citizens. Such charges mounted as the war progressed..." While the source does conclude that Jewish-Ukrainian relations were better than Polish-Ukrainian relations and that Jews were treated better by Ukrainians than they were by Poles, it neither states that Jews and Ukrainians were in some sort of tight anti-Polish alliance, nor does this source claim that Jews were being attacked as a result of the examples of Ukrainian-Jewish cooperation referenced on pg. 100. Indeed, when the same source describes anti-Jewish violence by Polish soldiers (including the Blue Army) in detail from page 102 to page 106 various reasons for anti-Jewish violence were described - and Jewish participation on the Ukrainian side wasn't listed as one of them. Therefore, using this phrase taken from this source to build a case for why Jews were being attacked seems to be OR.

Any objections to removing this sentence?Faustian (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, the preceding sentence states: " Individual 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.[18][19]" The first reference, [18] is to this source:. This source clearly doesn't have anything to say about this. I don't have access to the other source used as a ref: pg. 117 of Joanna B. Michlic. (2006). Poland's threatening other: the image of the Jew from 1880 to the present. University of Nebraska Press. Perhaps someone can confirm whether this source supports the sentence? Because the previous one clearly does not. A snippet view states "the tendency to legitimize anti-Jewish violence as national self-defense was first found in the speech and actions of officers and soldiers of the Haller and Wielopolska armies in the eastern territories between 1918 and 1919" but no mention of Ukrainians here. This page unfortunately isn't shown on googlebooks in its entirety. Faustian (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haller and Wielkopolska troops weren't present in Eastern Poland in 1918. Haller was in France and Wielkopolska fought Germans at home.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)\
 * Do you suggest I remove that sentence also, Xx236?Faustian (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been several days with no objections, so I am removing that first sentence for the reasons outlined. The preceding sentence will have the reference to Encyclopedia Judaica removed because that reference does not support the sentence.  Any feedback is welcome!Faustian (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you, . I've been busy on other articles and didn't get around to responding here earlier. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is OK. However, I will note that Fink, Prusin and Michlic all give scholarly accounts of the origins of anti-semitic violence by the BA (see sources collapsed in above discussions). When this section is re-written, as many agree it should be, I strongly believe that these accounts should be summarized, with attribution, so that readers understand not only that the violence occurred, but also in what context. -Darouet (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Faustian (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think once we trim the article down by removing stuff that shouldn't be there, we can then reorganize it and even add a little, including context.Faustian (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempted Removal of Information
The rfc summary was that it may be trimmed, not that it should be or that consensus was to trim. Per rfc, 3 people voted to keep it entirely, one voted to remove it entirely, one voted to trim it but said he could live with it if it wasn't trimmed. Keeping it as is the most popular option.Faustian (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Faustain, what you are doing is a clear case of WP:OWN, literally you sit on this article and prevent any changes to take place. The summary statement of the mediator states "The block-quote may be trimmed." So, please stop trying to own the article. This could be a case for arbitration. You won't even allow for practical changes to improve to sloppy structure of the article. What you added in the past simply stays as is, and you won't allow anyone to touch those parts of the article. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC above had 3 people voting that the stuff be kept in as is. One person, you, wanted it removed.  One other person wanted it trimmed but said he could live with it if it wasn't trimmed.  You couldn't get your way by having it removed so now you are trying to be disruptive by "trimming it", in your quest to remove negative information, even though the majority of people voting in the RFC wanted the info kept as is.Faustian (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To review, these were the actual votes from the RFC:


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

So - 3 Keep completely, 1 Remove, and 1 keep but trim, with the caveat that " I think the amount of quotation is unnecessary, and can be trimmed. I won't keel over and die if it isn't." Majority wanted to keep, but E-960 decided to trim anyways, and then falsely accuses me of trying to WP:OWN the article, when his own behavior can be described as that.Faustian (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from closer:--:--You perhaps misunderstood my closing statement.There is a difference between trim and outright blanking of entire content. Winged Blades Godric 05:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --The closing statement was a reflection of the consensus.Vote's don't matter, their contents do. Winged Blades Godric 05:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side-note, I would advise both the parties to discuss on talk rather than indulge in edit-warring.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 05:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair point, as a compromise solution I would like to suggest that we keep the first sentence out of the entire paragraph, but trim out the rest, I think the first sentence summarizes the point nicely without going over the top and keeping the entire encyclopedia entry. --E-960 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What you want removes 80%of what was written and removes all the information from the citation that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. That is hardly a "compromise." Trimming would involve removing unnecessary or redundant information, or information not about the pogroms. That's what I have just done.  Faustian (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, your reference source edit is like an article section within the reference citiation, I've never came across such an approach until I saw this… really. --E-960 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Linkrot is not a reason to remove. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen, the RfC is already closed, the source will be kept. --E-960 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, but that's still another editor agreeing to keep. RFC may be closed but these opinions also count for purposes of consensus.Faustian (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Faustian, as I stated above, fair point we should keep the first sentence, but can you pls stop with the WP:OWN and edit warring, at this point you are not allowing anyone to change the text you added in the past, that is ridiculous! What, you are just going to freeze the editing process in this article forever?--E-960 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Already four people have stated that they want to keep the thing. You are the only one whop wanted to remove it.  You didn't get your way, so now you are trying to remove 80% of it.  I have tried to make a compromise version that trims a little less than half of it, but that's not enough for you.  The only one acting like they own the article is you.  Please stop.Faustian (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades, the problem with Faustian is that he pushes POV on this article, the BA is not just pogroms, yet user Faustian wants to turn this article into a summary of the EJ statement where the only focus is on pogroms, (as if no other army during a war ever committed atrocities). That's the only thing he pushes on articles related to Polish history. I'm yet to see Faustian compromise on anything, totally egoistic no compromise approach to editing, and a bias towards the Polish side's account of history. You can't touch any part of the text he added in the past 2-3 years or whenever, it shall remain as is until the "internets" go out. --E-960 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'problem is' that it's inappropriate for you to call the kettle black, E-960. You are well aware that the discussion should be kept to the content, not the editor, so please don't shift the dialogue in order to appeal to Winged Blades of Godric based on accusations of 'POV interests' or OWN: it calls equally for scrutiny of your contributions and POV interests. Bias towards the Polish interpretation? This is about context, and I'm certainly in agreement with the "Keep" camp. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, the RfC is closed, and the conclusion was to keep the quote (the same as your recommendation), but to trim the block-quote. Pls see the RfC final summary state statement. That's why what Faustian is doing is nothing more than WP:OWN, because the conclusion of the RfC turned out not how he wanted, you can't get around that fact:
 * "Unanimous consensus to use the ref. source.The block-quote may be trimmed. Winged Blades"

Antisemitic armies of that time
Let's describe anti-semitism everywhere it existed, the Blue Army wasn't the only one.
 * The 1st Cavalry Army (Soviet Union) nothing, I have just added one sentence.
 * Antisemitism in Ukraine describes rather lack of reponsibilty than specific pogroms, there are two pages Proskurov pogrom (Petlura ?) and Kiev pogroms (1919) (Whites). I don't see anything here about the Kamianets-Podilskyi 1919 pogrom, to be written. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you find reliable sources describing such, by all means put the info into the appropriate article. But what does it have to do with this one?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia should be integral, to describes facts prortionally.
 * You are right, I should put my text into several pages/portals - Poland, Ukraine, Antisemitism. Communism. And at the end you will answer me there. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Xx236, that's anti-Polish bias... the text on anti-Jewish violence constitutes the biggest portion of the article, yet even as the sources state, only about 200-500 Jews fell victim to the BA, in a 4 year conflict and an army of 68,000 men. Also, notice how more is said about that issue than about Ukrainian civilians (just to put that into perspective) and the war was between Poles and Ukrainians. Btw, Faustian is also the guy that regularly checks the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia article to soften the language used to descrip that event, but goes out of his way to use the most sensationalist language in the BA article. --E-960 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Separate article
Issue of undue weight, the Morgenthau Report only cites 200-300 Jewish victims in 4 years of war and under an army of 68,000, and that inconsequential when compared to Polish and Ukrainain casualties during the war. If user faustian wants to write a detailed text on the issue, then please create a separate article, but not overload this one. As an example, the US had about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and killed much more Afghans (including clear abuses), but we don't start off the articles on that war with such matters. So stop with the Polish bashing. --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to remove this section. You have actually just lost an RFC in your attempt to remove a source from this section.  Morgenthau Report clams 200-3000 Jews murdered by elements of the Blue Army. Howard Sachar claims 400-500.  The Blue Army not only killed Jews but also engaged in looting and destruction.  One section out of 12 is not undue weight.  Please stop edit-warring outside consensus.Faustian (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * E-960, essentially you're railing for a WP:POVFORK. No, the content is WP:DUE for this article and should stay within the confines of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Faustian, I don't know what to say at this point, you clearly have consistency issues, where do you come up with this BS, where did you find 3,000??? Here is a quote from the report, it's 300 not 3,000:
 * "Jews lost their lives, while in the whole territory now controlled or occupied by the Polish Republic the grand total of deaths from excesses in which anti-Semitism was a factor has not exceeded 300."
 * You clearly should stop editing Wikipedia, because you really have problems with fact checking, and a bias towards matters related to Polish history. You are skewing the article to make the BA a "pogrom" army. Perhaps, you should get in on the US Army article and just write about the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, make them out to be the "Crusader" army… as some in the Muslim world see it. You're doing the same here, pushing Jewish histography on the entire topic, yet you fail to realize that Jewish casualties were very insignificant during this particular conflict. --E-960 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are clearly edit-warring against consensus. I encourage you, again, to stop please.Faustian (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)