Talk:Home Army/Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2021
After the Fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the reputation of the Home Army among the populace was restored, while their attitudes toward Jews remain controversial.

I don't understand why this is a single sentence: the reputation restoration apparently happened by 1999 (see the end of the article), so it's complete, while if their attitudes toward Jews remain controversial, the question has continued more than 20 years after their reputation was restored. Please split this into separate sentences. 64.203.186.76 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  RFZYN SPY  talk 01:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Can you please provide what the sentence would look like separated into multiple sentences? I'm not understanding where they need to split up.  RFZYN SPY  talk 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sentence was indeed pretty klutzy for a number of reasons. Aside from combining at least two independent clauses it’s not exactly clear what “reputation among populace” is suppose to mean (reputation among populace was probably fine even under communism - it was the portrayal in official propaganda that was the problem).  Volunteer Marek   06:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FR, "not done" does not mean "denied".
 * RFZYNSPY, what does "reputation among the populace was restored" actually mean? It's a meaningless horribly written piece of text which is NOT actually supported by any source.  Volunteer Marek   22:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent removal
You removed a sourced and quoted statement from the lead as unclear or ungrammatical, and replaced it with an unsourced one. I don't believe grammar is reason enough to remove a well-sourced statement from anywhere. Part of our role as wikipedians is to take good sources and make them accessible to the public; we have good sources, so make them accessible.

Also, reverting someone who reverted you in a TA that's subject to multiple ArbCom decisions (WP:ARBEE, WP:APL) is not good practice. François Robere (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm, no, Francois Robere. You reverted me without bothering to even comment on talk (the relevant section is right above). THAT is "not good practice". So perhaps you can take your own advice and apply it to yourself? Or is this one of these "rules apply to you but not to me" things?
 * I explained my reasons several times. The lede doesn't need sources, and whether a statement is sourced or not is irrelevant if it is borderline incoherent.  Volunteer Marek   19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the text was added very recently (August 4th) so obviously the WP:ONUS to get consensus is on you - which is what you should've been doing rather than trying to start an edit war.  Volunteer Marek   20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you're familiar with WP:BRD, Marek? You made an edit, I reverted it, now it's your turn to take it to talk. In fact, you're explicitly discouraged from "[re-reverting] to your version".
 * I explained my reasons several times Where? I only saw your edit summaries - " Per edit request - the sentence is indeed extremely awkward and a non sequitur" and "The sentence doesn't make grammatical or logical sense, source or no" - which I found somewhat illogical and ungrammatical in their own right, so please explain what's exactly the problem.
 * The lede doesn't need sources Per MOS:LEADCITE, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged... should be supported by an inline citation". That material has already been challenged, so you should've supplied a source before restoring it.
 * the text was added very recently (August 4th) so obviously the WP:ONUS to get consensus is on you Ah... no. The first half of that statement was there as early as January, along with the two sources. The second half was added by a month ago, AFAIK without objections. You don't get to call WP:ONUS when the content has already been there for weeks and months. François Robere (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? In the section right above as already referenced several times. It helps if you read the talk before reverting.
 * The challenge here is removing it, which is my view, so I don’t understand why you think I should provide a citation for text I don’t think belongs in the article. How does that even make sense?
 * ”As early as January” isn’t that “early either” and that is actually NOT the part you’re disputing so why are you acting like it is? And yes, WP:ONUS is on those who wish to restore text that’s been challenged.
 * Just stop trying to start pointless edit wars man.  Volunteer Marek   20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It helps if you read the talk before reverting. I have indeed, and I found it lacking. You (again) gave no policy-based reason for favoring deletion instead of a simple copyedit (eg. adding "local" before "populace", which would immediately make it clear).
 * I don’t understand why you think I should provide a citation What did you replace the removed statement with?
 * ”As early as January” isn’t that “early either” and that is actually NOT the part you’re disputing so why are you acting like it is? I'm disputing your removal of the entire statement, Marek. Where did you see me state otherwise? Also, January is early enough that we're past WP:ONUS; now you're making a change after consensus has already been established, so it's on you to justify it. BTW, the references you removed go back at least to December 2019. François Robere (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, adding "local" before "populace" would not have clarified anything. If anything it would have made it more confusing. And as you yourself note I did not remove the entire statement - I cleaned it up. And are you seriously gonna try to Wikilawyer whether "January" is early enough or not? This is just the ever constant shifting of goalposts ("it's early if I say it is").  Volunteer Marek   14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And as you yourself note I did not remove the entire statement Did I? Where?
 * are you seriously gonna try to Wikilawyer whether "January" is early enough or not? Are you seriously going to claim WP:ONUS for something that's been in the article, undisputed, for more than a few days?
 * adding "local" before "populace" would not have clarified anything. If anything it would have made it more confusing. Then you're welcome to be creative, do a little diffing, find what the sources say, and suggest an edit that clarifies the statement instead of removing it. What do you say? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to claim WP:ONUS for something that's been in the article, undisputed, for more than a few days? Well, um, yes. Obviously. Look it does NOT work like this: put it in an article, hope no one notices for a few days, claim it's enshrined in gold in the article forever. It works the other way. In fact, just in general ONUS is on those who wish to include and most certainly for text that's just been added. Seriously, "undisputed for days"? What does that even suppose to prove? It's like "uninterrupted for minutes". Anyway, apparently there has been text in Wikipedia articles that stayed "uundisputed" for years, yet, it should've been removed.
 * I did clarify the statement. Just not to your liking I guess.  Volunteer Marek   17:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read WP:CONSENSUS, in particular WP:EDITCON: "an edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement." Those edits had presumed consensus, yours don't.
 * I did clarify the statement No, you changed its meaning. Would you like to suggest a different phrasing that clarifies the statement without changing its meaning? François Robere (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I suggest you re-read your own statement, the part where it says "unless it is disputed or reverted". Which it was. "These" edits did not have presumed consensus just because they managed to stay in the article for a couple days.
 * And yes I guess I changed the "meaning" - from "reputation among populace" which didn't make much sense.  Volunteer Marek   21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You already know that half the material was there for 3 weeks and the other for 0.5-1.5 years, so saying it was there "for a couple days" is disingenuous.
 * You replaced the phrase "its reputation was restored" with the completely different "it was no longer subject to government propaganda", without sourcing, and you won't even hold up to that.
 * This is becoming disruptive. You do not have consensus, so unless you're willing to propose an alternative I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and walk away. François Robere (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * for 0.5-1.5 years Lol. Why not get really serious and go for “for 0.5-1000 years”? It’s been there since January. And it was ungrammatical, unsourced, and badly written.
 * Yes I replaced “it’s reputation was restored”. Was that sourced? No? Then what exactly are you complaining about? Was it hard to understand and badly written? Yes? Then what exactly are you complaining about? Was it untrue? Yeah, since it’s “reputation among the populace”, to the extent that actually means something, was just fine all along, it was it’s portrayal in communist propaganda that changed. Again, what exactly is your problem with this change? It’s a clear improvement.
 * And you know what’s really disruptive (rather than “I’m gonna pretend this is disruptive so that I can cast WP:ASPERSIONS at you”)? Trying to make a big deal out of someone fixing a badly written statement just to pick a pointless fight. And, no, YOU, don’t have consensus. And I *did* “propose an alternative” which you implicitly acknowledge by complaining about my edit. Sorry FR, but YOU are the one who keeps beating this dead horse. So yeah, drop the stick. And telling someone to “walk away”, as if you just gotten into some fisticuffs is rude, WP:UNCIVIL and indicative of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that you bring to this topic area. Don’t tell other editors to “walk away”. What is this, a pub parking lot? Seriously, don’t talk like that to others. It’s offensive.  Volunteer Marek   07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely, if the issue is grammatical, the solution is to copy edit it, especially if sourced, not remove it outright. I added that to the lead as a summary of Relations with ethnic groups (Jews) because it was due, as determined by the weight it was given in the body, and the removal itself was a violation of NPOV and due weight. Here, they wrote "this is technically correct but it misses the point of Armstrong’s article (the title has 'reassessment' in it for a reason) With proper wording this could be included along with the 'no detailed examinations' part, though overall article is pretty old e)." Why not just doing that rather than remove it? In short, "The sentence doesn't make grammatical or logical sense, source or no" makes no sense in itself, the edit request was itself unclear (so much for the added phrase making no sense or being unclear), and is not a valid reason to remove it outright, and does not reference any of our policies and guidelines. Finally, it does not need to be just challenged, there needs to be a valid reason, better if backed by our policy and guidelines, for it to be challenged; this does not look to be the case (the first challenge in the edit request was actually rejected as unclear and this second challenge should be similarly rejected as a NPOV violation and as a lack of pragmatism, i.e. copy editing, clarifying the Armstrong 1994 source, not simply remove it outright as "extremely awkward and a non sequitur" [sic!], which may not be an actual policy but it may show a lack of good faith), it is more like "I just don't like it."
 * Davide King (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Armstrong article, that whole article is about something else - it debunks the myth that there was an order issued by Bor-Komorowski regarding “Jewish bands” (sic) and it takes some other historians to task for spreading that myth. This means that the quote that was pullout of this article is just a cherry picked aside and not representative of the actual source.
 * And I don’t know, but not having a sentence that barely makes sense and is a mish mash of several awkwardly phrased and hard to understand yet distinct ideas seems like a pretty valid reason for removal.
 * I’m not sure what the objection to me calling it a non-sequitur is. That’s exactly what it was.  Volunteer Marek   21:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, that statement is simply in further support and verification of "Both 'profoundly disturbing acts of violence as well as extraordinary acts of aid and compassion' have been reported, though the majority of Holocaust survivors in an analysis by Joshua D. Zimmerman reported negative interactions with the Home Army." Either way, there is Blutinger 2015 which says "... the Home Army had a difficult and complicated relationship with Jews and Jewish underground organizations." Clearly, their "difficult and complicated relationship" with Jews is lead worthy, so you even disagree with this? If you have a wording that is of your satisfaction, please provide it. My main concern was the removal of source content on unrelated grounds that could be fixed with copy editing rather than removal. Davide King (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion is going nowhere and a majority of editors (which is to say - Davide King and myself) presented policy-based rationales for inclusion (see WP:DETCON), I've restored Davide's addition and tagged Volunteer Marek's challenged statement. François Robere (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm... not sure about the quality of that Blutinger article. The very first sentence is "In February 1999, just months after the fall of the Berlin Wall..." Come on. But FWIW that same source contains the info that you tagged as "citation needed". Why?  Volunteer Marek   15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see how a likely typo is ground for removal; we are not talking about the Berlin Wall, it is a tertiary source for the controversial relationship with Jews. Do you dispute this too? And if it really does contain the tagged information, then good. I just do not see why we should report only one part. Davide King (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's fine, I do realize it's just a typo, though really, someone dropped the ball. But the source itself is reliable. I don't really like that two different clauses - about the controversial relationship with Jews, and one about communist propaganda - are made to be part of the same sentence. It's bad stylistically, unless there's reason to think the two are somehow related.  Volunteer Marek   22:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink
The first link in "External links" leads to an obsolete URL from July, 2008. The correct URL is "https://muzeum-ak.pl". Can anyone change that? I don't have permissions to change that. regards --Koyaanisqatsi01 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Article may be a bit unfair or misleading / contradictory
A lot of reference to a single historian, Polonsky, and int enrol a bit discordant, with phrases that light mislead the casual reader to a pte really hostile stance and contradictory statements which might give some exaggerated negative view- ‘controversial’ would imply to many readers they were killing Jews, as does the claim about antisemitusm in the population by means of a connector ‘however’ implying that this is abt the AK. Also antyk is defined strongly as primarily antisemitic in its slogans when all it’s headlines reforded on the polishnsote we’re not of that nature so clearly they weren’t simply that, besides being a short lived anti PPR type action whcih isn’t equivalent to the constant and mainstream BInin scale- it lasted 9 months and took 14% of the propaganda budget at the time and at best some features within it if the statement sk to be trusted, whcih I trust by default, but do not reveal anything about some pervasive activity LFT eh AK even if, just part of a part of the activity and an exmae of ig so kf a  bad contradiction but a small one  especially with respect or elsehwere mentioned activity, which is possible to criticise cor insufficient engagement and radiclakty, universality aand power depending kn circumstances even if you want to show element a inside it as proof of latent antusemitusm in certain parts, thigh in effect a lot of it seems pro land reform opposition to the ussr secret police, descriptions of kolkhoz life or talk abt PPR soviet ties. (I’m not denying there was that too), and talking abt the BI as from ‘the liberal wing’ as if not on one hand leftist and liber elements were not more than the rightist ‘wing’ ie there was only a liberal ‘wing’. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:24EC:B096:4B1D:9ECD (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Even scratching the stuff abt antyk, I think soemtimes sentences one after another discontinguous and depict the AK as by default unfriendly or hostile to Jewish people
 * it mentions the stuff about deconspiration of Jewish fighters as if it were unique to the al as well.
 * in general you should include antisemtiic themes in Antyk even if it was not purely about it, and in the rightist ND sub faction fo the AK, but my thing here was the focus of a presumption and contradictory statements to the effect that the home army in general was more anti Jewish than the western allies for example. The question to what extent extent in official govt statements or actions were they, including ofc according to many polish historians as well (there’s a use of a phrase ‘Jewish historians’ which implies it’s a question of identity what position you hold) judgements insofucuien. There is a narrative almost of inaction here and passivity, when only some types of actions are mentioned and they’re not compiled. For example, the ‘N’ Action isn’t mentioned, paper mills are
 * metnioned in passing despite the size of the operation and the different applications of it. Anti collaborationism idk if is stressed enough
 * I will not deny antusemitusm existed among some members or structures but to furthe coarctation the position Tod be good to show the fulls lan and extremely wide political latitude of the different groupings of the AK, the PPS-WRN and ZSP for example. I do not mean to whitewash anything by doing so but to show rather that the AK was not primarily or somehow mostly rightist or ND but I think more detail should be added to focus abt the AK in general and the article should be made more acosnsitent with itself.
 * The reader on reading the polonsky bits may seem to think the home army was maybe incompetent and actually unwilling to help Jews because ‘it didn’t like them’, this is the indirect implication pitnejy contrary to statements knthe stifle. Criticisms of antisemtiism in polish society of the time and the overly or apparently apathetic on balance stance of the London govt is one thing (it’s fine to ignore the examples of others).
 * All actions, including against blackmailers of Jews involved risk of life and strained resources and in case of attacks against Germans of mass retributions, any materiel used or handed over could be extremely valuable. The idea though that by default the stances were heartless or ignoble and the risking of life to save Jew a bunch individual units whether of the AK or indeed selarate from this GL/Al is proof some were ‘friendly’ to Jews is wrong. This kind of action so more than being abstractly friendly, to be able to risk one’s life for another’s’ protection in the face of retribution: you may say morality commands it but it’s above the line fo friendliness ie the implication shouldn’t be that Jews were treated as a whole in an unfriendly therefore hostile way or shunned except by select units who robes otherwise. This again despite the e general of still insufficient you are free to claim actions would claim the image that poles in the AK etc were a rotten bag with a Few good apples.
 * finally the Yugoslav resistance movement may have been of similar size as wel not just the soviet one. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:24EC:B096:4B1D:9ECD (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not intend here to deny antismetiism or inaction even potentially if you want to argue it goes inaction to substitute for it all the heroic deeds of those who save djew, I just don’t like eh ambiguities and otential - I’ve seen it used as such- for self the name int he yes kf a casual and neutral observers searching for information, finding apparently contradictory statelets written with a certain thing to show in mind but potentially showing something else, and furthermore carrying locations which may lead them to view the AK negatively for reason they wouldn’t if it had been written more clearly which; as for example an English’s rocker; they may have not heard of.I kind of wish there was more integration too between language versions. I feel like this section about Jews is too single-handedly and not in a duly synthesised way referencing Polonsky. It is not necessary to say he’s wrong about everything, you don’t have to belive he’s wrong about anything at all, but to rely on him alone and not even other similar perspective historians lcan give a skewed view/ readers if they’re informed of controversy over something should be given some contrasting voices int eh ckntkrversy, even if you think for example they’re completely wrong . This is at least to me give the article was structured or worded in sometimes clashing or codnxlring ways. I think some things aren’t fleshed out and discussed or brought together into a single flow of arguments and balances enough, instead sort of leaving questions hanging or passing over them by implying that the AK as a whole was antisemtiic or fundamentally opposed to helping Jews, or not confronting them, seemingly adopting more than one subtly different stance about the same thing due to edit wars 2A02:A310:E23F:400:24EC:B096:4B1D:9ECD (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry I didn’t make an account, I feel guilty about the amount of rambling I did. The point is I accept all criticism as possible, some with definitnesss some requiring some potentially more discussion ornkvestigation but not neglecting the very leftist image moral claim behind it in principle but the criticism against the background of what is criticised and why is put in a potentially clunky way or one which may be misunderstood with the regard to the general underlying modes or patterns of behaviour, or at least what the conclusions are based on and what are the different accepted in academic historical circles the different positions in debate, and how are they received against the background of the facts many of which are presented. I don’t want to rehabilitate any antusemitusm or inaction, it’s just especially to some riders the article may be confusing or hostile because the terms of reference aren’t mentioned, in terms of comparison and the connective may imply things abt the AK that are used to refer to polish society in general and may represent. To certain readers a more hostile view of the AK than cited sources or authors would I think intend, in the sense that they are given without added context to the narration they oppsoe besides the already intend 2A02:A310:E23F:400:24EC:B096:4B1D:9ECD (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2022
Change Joanna Drzewieniecki to Jarosław Piekałkiewicz (text and footnote 86). Joanna edited the book but is not listed as a co-author. See amazon.com or Hamilton Books. JDPeruPhDBuffalo (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Madeline  ( part of me ) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)