Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

content from Defending the Rights of Others

@E-960: you've removed sourced information in this revert that was present (in a distorted form - misrepresenting the source) in the stable version of the article. Your reversion rationale -- Reverted edit, this text was added by user on 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018‎, in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS to include this NEW text in the article. is not based on any policy. Please point to a discussion in which there was no consensus for this. Removal of well sourced information, to an academic book by an expert, requires a solid rationale based on policy. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

3R rule, in the middle of an edit war and a discussion regarding UNDE WEIGHT in the article you decided to add even more material to the disputed section — text was reverted because not only did it add more material to the already lengthy section, but also because the text did not pertain to the BA directly, discussing separate events in Warsaw and Paris (clearly going off on a tangent). --E-960 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This is no way related to 3RR. I did not decide to add more disputed material - I corrected a very serious misrepresentation of Fink (and an editor edit warring against consensus to blank a section (+lede) - is not grounds for letting a serious misrepresentation that is defamatory to the cited author stand). I actually removed 312 bytes in the diff - [1] - of content that was longstanding. As for "going off on a tangent" - Fink clearly ties the diplomatic ramifications of Haller's pogroms to Haller, referring explicitly to "reports of a new wave of violence unleashed by Haller's troops against the Jewish population of Galicia". The international ramifications of the violence committed by the Blue Army is clearly relevant to the Blue Army, as is the Polish propaganda campaign regarding these reports. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding text on Padarewski's Paris diplomacy and unrelated street riots in Warsaw is info not directly tied to the BA. --E-960 (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This diff, under discussion, did not add anything about anti-Jewish violence in Warsaw. The cited source, Fink, clearly ties the BA's actions to diplomacy in Paris. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If this was a separate article, you could go into secondary issues like impact on diplomacy, but to start discussing events at the Paris peace conference is too much given issues of undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Most recent changes

Clearly there is no consensus for the massive changes made after the block was removed, so I restored the previous version. Looking at the discussion above [2], the editors who agree to those changes seem to be outnumbered 3:6, yet one editor went with the minority viewpoint and made changes against consensus.

Although I agree that the section about the Jewish volunteers is poorly sourced, and probably shouldn't be included, there does not seem to be clear consensus to remove that section, so I restored it also pending further discussion.Faustian (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I will note that this revert returned WP:OR not supported by the Jewish Yearbook as well as gross misrepresentation of page 227 of Carole Fink's book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Faustian: - the Jewish volunteers section is sourced entirely to Gesher Galicia's (a geneological website/society) quarterly. Written by Edward Goldstein (the editor of the publication) - this would probably count as self-published. A better source is required for this. This is also a misrepresentation of Goldstein's "Jewish names" claim which is very qualified in the source - per Goldstein - "Now, as every researcher knows, the definition of what constitutes a “Jewish” name is a slippery one. Individuals with “Jewish” names often turn out to be anything but Jewish, and vice versa" - Goldstein basically scanned a list of 1,318 names in a casualty list and judged 62 to be probably Jewish. Goldstein's work does not seem to be cited by others (with the exception of a BA thesis). Such a misrepresentation of Goldstein's work should not be restored (and probably should be present at all - given the marginal sourcing here). Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Goldstein's (who himself, to my understanding, is writing in a non-academic context on genealogy) analysis is based on a list by Paul S. Valasek - a dentist by trade who has been involved in genealogy.[3] Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this ought to be removed.Faustian (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I entered the additional sources to back that up Faustian, this should not be removed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And as before, they're somewhat problematic: One by the "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" from 1987, which I wouldn't consider an RS; another an RS from 1939 (good luck finding it in your local library), and only one recent RS (2010) that we should be able to use. François Robere (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The 2010 source ain't much use by my reading. This is a local history and refers to a single individual - Nuchem Brachman.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There are other names of Jewish fighters in these publications. They are listed below with the corresponding page numbers. Just type the name and the short info about the person will appear. There were actually quite a few of these soldiers. I guess people enlisted for a variety of reasons into either Galician or Polish Army. I haven't researched why exactly but I'm guessing that most were already more or less assimilated and identified themselves either as Ukrainians of Poles, but this is just my guess. The bottom line is that the Blue Army received volunteers of Jewish background like Siegmann for example. [4] Jewish veterans of the war even established an Association of Jewish fighters for Polish Independence ( Związek Żydów Uczestników Walk o Niepodległość Polski) (6700 members[5]) after the conflict ended. --> "The call of the fallen" in the picture here [6] Similar ceremonies were taking place elsewhere in Poland also -> [7] For example, Nikodem Polak (a vice president of the Association of Jewish fighters for Polish Independence) was an officer in the Haller Army (Blue Army), the link to his obituary is here.[8] His funeral was led by the Rabbis Freund and Lewin (story below obituary) GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Given this unit's reputation for violence against Jews, it is probably notable that there were some Jews fighting in it and this ought to be included in the article, although an entire section devoted to them seems excessive and Goldstein's estimate doesn't seem to be a RS..Faustian (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books

I read the book by Alexander Victor Prusin and it is used very selectively, Prusin doesn't mention anything about Haller's units raping or burning books on page 103. He does point out wider context of the conflict mainly support by Jewish organizations for German Empire, and he does describe in detail their opposition towards Polish independence and attempts of Polish politicians to reconcile with Jewish groups which were rejected. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Already been discussed and RFC'd: [9]. Full paragraph by Prusn:

"The situation in Kresy Wshodnie and Galiica also reflected the psychological imprint of the four years of continuous warfare, for World War I and the frontier wars made the residents of these areas inured to brutalities and suffering. The violence not only served the immediate needs of personal enrichment but also provided a legitimate and relatively easy target - Jews - upon which to unleash personal frustrations. Looting and robbery, therefore, were consistently accompanied by beatings, rapes, and wanton destruction of prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues. The congruence of ethnic and ideological animosities also precipitated assaults. Two units - Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army - especially earned the reputation of notorious Jew-baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski. The anti-Jewish zeal of these soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznan province, where Jews sided with the Germans during the Polish-German conflict in the winter of 1919. Similarly, the actions of Haller's army, which had arrived from France, might be explained by the fact that some contingents came from the United States, where Jewish-Polish relations went from bad to worse during World War I."Faustian (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The above paragraph doesn't mention Haller's Blue Army as engaging in rapes or burning of books Faustian.It mentions that these things happened but doesn't specifically state that BA was responsible for these kind of actions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Also the RFC you mentioned is both inconclusive and also regarding completely different book and quote.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Already been argued by your side, no consensus for your creative interpretation. In the same paragraph Prusin described a laundry list of crimes and singles out Haller's Blue Army and Poznan regiments as responsible for those crimes. Very creative interpretation that Haller's army wasn't involved.Faustian (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is straight forward original research since the source does not support the claim. It's WP:SYNTHesized. Pointing out that something is OR and SYNTH is NOT "creative interpretation". And since this is quite an extreme claim which raises WP:REDFLAGs. Which means that you need to find other sources - if it's true, it shouldn't be hard - or it goes. Volunteer Marek 07:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a paragraph describing various atrocities. In the same paragraph, the author singles out Haller's army as one of two units who were the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. It would appear to be original research to claim that somehow the info in the same paragraph does not pertain to Haller's army. And indeed a previous RFC concluded the same thing I have.Faustian (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, two different units and it's unclear which ones were responsible for what. For example, we do now that the Lwow part does not apply to the BA since they weren't in Poland when it happened. So the particular list of localities is indeed original research. Volunteer Marek 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling arguments against change. I agree that this statement does not directly say that the BA engaged in those things, given the controversial nature of this topic only high quality sources and direct references to the BA should be used. --E-960 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry the paragraph in question wasn't discussed in RFC at all as far as I can see--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the paragraph doesn't name Blue Army as engaging in rapes or burning of books.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See link above. RFC was closed with the statement : " The statement does properly reflect the source. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)".Faustian (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Especially when the RfC is so old and does not specifically address this issue but a different one. Oh, and it's another non-admin close. WP:REDFLAG applies. Volunteer Marek 07:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Has consensus changed? More people seem to agree that this belongs, than that it does not belong. Two RFCs asked if a sentence based on this paragraph, stating that Haller's army engaged in various crimes, belongs in the article because the paragraph describes crimes committed by Haller's army (see link here: [10]). The first RFC was closed with the conclusion that " the statement is not dubious because it is consistent with source, and may be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)." The second RFC (same link, just scroll down) reached same conclusion: "The statement does properly reflect the source. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)". Opposition came from a permanently banned user. Do we need to open a third RFC?Faustian (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rape" is a very serious matter and it should be covered. Can we have an additional source to verify that? I'm unable to find anything in English or Polish. Any Ukrainian sources F.? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

..An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, the discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly supports the information - it is in the same paragraph and singles out Haller's troops as an egregious example of this. Previous RfC concluded this should be included. This is not a minor aspect of the Blue Army - much (and quite possibly most, at least in English) of the coverage of Haller's troops is in the context of antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I will further note that Hagen, page 317 - [11] - supports this as well - Hallerites were enacting, through beard cutting with bayonets, a symbolic slaughter of religious Jews, akin to the “Judas Fest.” They were redistributing Jews' ill-gotten gains among joyous Christian poor (keeping better booty for themselves). Their civilian followers, adn they themselves, laughed uproariously at elderly Jews' misery. They tried, though failed, to demolish the synagogue and the rabbi's house. They proclaimed, through their victims' mouths, the rabbis death. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder". Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The above fragment also doesn't mention anything about rape.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Read again. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder".Icewhiz (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hagen is the author who incorrectly attributes the Lwow Pogrom to the BA, even though the BA was not even in Poland at the time. His work is an example of Western English language literature which is unfamiliar with the subject and engages in a sort of "orientalism" with regard to Eastern Europe, employing stereotypes and hearsay rather than serious research. He seems to have trouble telling Eastern Europeans apart for example. His knowledge of the region appears to come directly via German language works and as such tends to repeat the claims made in these without critical inquiry. Since we do not he got a whole bunch of other shit wrong, I see no reason to use him here either. If the claims are verifiable, then it should be easy to find other sources. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your criticism and WP:OR regarding a highly cited well-regarded tenured historian specializing in Eastern Europe duly noted. However, I did attempt to WP:V this citation in the article (something - lacking for much of the content in the article), and saw that the original says - It was, together with lawless civilians, mainly troops of the Haller legions who, with the connivance or toleration of their military superiors, carried out the pogrom. (bold mine). In Haller legions, I would assume Hagen is not referring to Haller's army (or the Blue Army), but rather to 2nd Brigade, Polish Legions commanded by Józef Haller. I am unable to verify Lida via the citation. So - it would seem the issue is not with Hagen, but with whichever editor added this bit to begin with. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Lwow and Lida claim attributed to Hagen based on the above quote from the cited source which does not support it.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you made to verify and the edit. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

a highly cited well-regarded tenured historian specializing in Eastern Europe - very funny. We slaves from Eastern Europe don't like our ignorant white masters. There are books and academic papers about Western bias and ignorance. Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For now, the entire story of rapes committed by BA is based on a single, no apparent source. Are there any other sources verifying the claim of rape crimes committed by BA? GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Its source is perfectly reliable, Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914–1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. It clearly describes rapes as being consistently used by two units - from the source - Looting and robbery, therefore, were consistently accompanied by beatings, rapes, and wanton destruction of prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues.- Who did such things?According to the source, - Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army. - Note that rapes were described as having been done consistently by these units. A second source obliquely mentions rapes. "Hallerites were enacting, through beard cutting with bayonets, a symbolic slaughter of religious Jews, akin to the “Judas Fest.” They were redistributing Jews' ill-gotten gains among joyous Christian poor (keeping better booty for themselves). Their civilian followers, and they themselves, laughed uproariously at elderly Jews' misery. They tried, though failed, to demolish the synagogue and the rabbi's house. They proclaimed, through their victims' mouths, the rabbis death. On their pranks' fringes hovered specters of rape and murder Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914-1920 By William W. Hagen. There have been two RFCs about this already, and if one counts the opinions here in the last couple of weeks, the ones who want the info removed are outnumbered. It is unfortunate that some editors (not you) choose to engage in making edits without connensus when they can't achieve consensus on the talk page.Faustian (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet another one - "was recaptured by the Polish army, they accused the Jews of collaborating with the Bolsheviks and started to harass them, surpassed the other in violence were the soldiers of General Haller. There were cases of robbery and rape.[12]. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"hovered on the fringes" is not the same as committed. Prusin himself has a bias here - he's writing from a Ukrainian nationalist perspective. Other than that, even this source is talking about two different units and you cannot attribute the atrocities committed to ONE of them, when the source itself is not clear on who did what. That's original research and a misrepresentation of the source. Volunteer Marek 13:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

In particular the source says "staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski" but it doesn't say which regiment was responsible for which. And we know the Lwow one wasn't BA because they weren't in Poland at the time. So that leaves the other two as POSSIBILITIES. How about you find other sources to back up the Sambor and GJ one? Otherwise this is misrepresenting the source. Volunteer Marek 13:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The types of behavior were described and both units were identified as units engaging in such behaviors (indeed, they were singled out as especially engaging in those behaviors), in various locations. It is OR to claim that one or the other did not engage in specific behaviors form that list.Faustian (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not "both" identified as "both committing" these pogroms. It's an OR statement not a AND statement. It's obvious from how it's written but also from the fact that we know BA wasn't involved in the Lwow pogrom because they weren't even in Poland at the time (still in France). Please stop misrepresenting the source. Volunteer Marek 07:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Prusin's exact words: Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army. It is very much an "AND" statement, not an or statement. Don't misrepresent the source.Faustian (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And here is the other thing - Prusin is the only source which mentions pogroms in Sambir and Grodek Jagiellonski in 1919. The only pogrom in Sambir that is mentioned in other sources is the one carried out by Ukrainian nationalists in 1941 This source describes the history of the town in detail but doesn't mention ANYTHING for 1919. Similarly it's hard to find anything for Grodek Jagiellonski anywhere but Prusin. It almost looks like he took two WW2 pogroms that were done by Ukrainians and ascribed them the two Polish units which were key in defeating Ukrainians twenty years earlier. Volunteer Marek 07:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

To add more, what exactly is "Poznan Regiment" that Prusin is talking about? There was the 15th Poznań Uhlans Regiment but these units were not in any of these places. There was a - much smaller - company called the "Poznan-Lwow" company, which did fight near Horodok but this wasn't a "regiment". Volunteer Marek 07:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

We already say "along with the Poznan regiments" - addressing your concerns of this stmt (as many others) referring to these two units jointly in reference to atrocities. I'm not sure exactly what the Poznan regiments were (they seem to be troops from the Posen province sent East), but they're not Prusin's invention, e.g. see - this source from 1993 - by Pawel Korzec. In terms of primary sources - they appear here in 1920 (as Posen regiments - a spelling which appears in many period sources). Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Engel - miscitation, OR, hoax

@E-960:, you have restored this bit. Engel does not say this and furthermore this is a false hoax as the mid war Morgenthau report conrains Lwow (Lemberg). Please justify this content based on the cited source prior to restoring.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The underlying problem is in the sentence preceding that one, since it doesn't accurately reflects ITS source. The problem is easily solved by removing BOTH sentences. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the previous sentence reflects Prusin, though I see the point of some of it attributed to the Ponzan regiments and BA. The sentence attributed to Engel does not jive with anything in Engel and is factually incorrect in regards to Morgenthau - whomever crafted this did not understand that Lemberg = Lwow = Lviv/Lvov.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

.."There were cases of robbery and rape." Incidents of robbery and rape can be connected to any Army. [13],[14],[15] but we don't call US Army "rapists" because of the particular incidents of rape committed by its soldiers. Similar to French or British troops in Germany for example. [16] We acknowledge that BA perpetrated violence against the Jews but was the widespread rapes committed by BA soldiers also? I'm struggling to find additional sources to confirm that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source specifically singled out robbery and rape by Haller's Army. If this were an article about the Polish army such detail would be unwarranted.Faustian (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)