Talk:Home Army/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Revert

I reverted this edit[4] as it had serious neutrality issues. First of all it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype. This is obviously not true.Second of all it twisted the information greatly, Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk.Third of all Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda.Fourth-the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work. As such the current edit wasn't neutral and had serious undue weight issues. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

it insinuated that all claims about involvement with Soviet forces were part of stereotype No, it didn't. It stated that the emphasis placed on the subject was fed by a stereotype, in-line with the sources. In fact, I was careful to note that the two district commanders mentioned by name were stationed in eastern Poland, so as not to undermine the later claim that attitudes towards Jews varied between east and west, which as written suggests Soviet affiliations were more prevalent in the east.

Zimmerman mentions that others in the underground had reservations about the group Antyk Zimmerman gives the example of Col. Rzepecki, head of the Home Army's Bureau of Information (of which Antyk was part), but he gives it as an example of how radical was its staff, not of how ill-regarded it was as a whole. The fact Col. Rzepecki could not rid Antyk of the people he so vehemently opposed raises serious questions about their acceptance within the larger organization. If you wish to mention Rzepecki we can do so, but we ought to also mention Antyk operated apparently uninterrupted until the end of the war.

Zimmerman mentions clearly that its primarily aim was to counter communist and Soviet propaganda Zimmerman also says this: In contrast to the sometime sympathetic tone in the reports of the Home Army and Delegate’s Bureau, the Home Army’s anti-communist division, Antyk, had a pronounced anti-Jewish orientation. The division’s staff included the openly anti-Jewish figure, Henryk Glass. Internal documents of Antyk demonstrate that it identified antisemitism as a useful tool in the struggle against communism. Stressing the idea that Jews were behind communism, Antyk tried to infuse the Polish population with a marked anti-communist and anti-Soviet sentiment. That is why Antyk instructed its members to link “Judaism” to communism in its propaganda literature. (pp. 380-381)

the publications of Antyk were not only specified towards Jews and it was a minority of their work Source?

Bottom line: You removed sourced information on two district commanders persecuting Jews and on an AK division publicly endorsing anti-Semitic views, and cherry-picked a claim on the underground press at large (the original: To date, most underground reporting on the fate of the Jews was sympathetic. An important exception was [Antyk]). François Robere (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Antyk wasn't a AK division.Once again you write something that is a glaring historical error.It seems to me that you cherry picked parts of the text from Zimmerman without actually reading on the subject. For the record even Zimmerman writes about them as sub-division.I am afraid Zimmerman is much more nuanced that you believe and there's plenty in his writings about AK protecting and helping Jewish population, and his writings on reporting on Jewish issues does include information that it was positive in majority.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what bothers you? Let's call them a "special ancillary sub-department". Either way, they were AK.

Zimmerman is very nuanced, but of "Anytk" he's unequivocally critical, and you've given no reason not to cite his criticism. François Robere (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Either way, "they were AK"Antyk counted 20 people and actually they worked in secret from AK, which counted 400,000 people. So saying "they were AK" is grossly out of proportion, especially since work Zimmerman mentions was even a marginal amount of their activity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The entire BOI was 150 people. Shall we delete the article? François Robere (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

" The entire BOI was 150 people" I am glad you now have abandoned the oversimplication in phrase "They were AK". I believe Antyk is notable but if you want to propose its deletion that is your choice.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Krakowski was a Communist propaganda officer

He indoctrinated Polish soldiers. As far as I know he has never described his work. Is he ashamed?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he reached the rank of major and was in charge of Stalinist propaganda and indoctrination in the "People's Army" of Poland (this source which obviously is very glowing in its biography of him describes this as working in the "political division" - anyone familiar with the Stalinist period would know what that means, but those not so familiar would probably miss this). Part of the tasks of the "political division" of the People's Army of Poland in the Stalinist period was to carry out disinformation and propaganda campaigns against the Home Army and its members, who were being actively (and brutally) persecuted by the communist authorities during this time. He's a source which should be avoided or at the very least properly attributed with background. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Shmuel Krakowski was born in Warsaw and grew up in Łódź, where he joined the HaShomer HaTsair socialist Zionist youth movement. He was incarcerated in the Lodz ghetto during the war and was active in the underground youth movements there. He survived the ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, death marches, and Theresienstadt, where he was liberated. He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division. Afterward he worked for the Museum of the History of the Polish Revolutionary Movement, and following that worked in the archive of Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. He was fired in 1968 as part of the government’s antisemitic campaign that led to the expulsion of most of the remaining Jews of Poland. Shmuel moved to Israel and began working in Yad Vashem’s archive. His doctorate written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Jewish armed resistance in the Generalgouvernement in occupied Poland resulted in his book The War of the Doomed, which remains a standard work on the subject to this day. He passed earlier this year.

If you have a source directly criticisng him then bring it, otherwise stop smearing the man. François Robere (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

IDONTLIKE it of a well regarded Jewish historian duly noted (on the basis of hime surviving the Holocaust and enlisting in the Polish army after the Holocaust - prior to becoming an historiaan). There is utterly no basis to treat him as anything other than a reliable source. Should we strike Polish authors who were Home Army, had family in the Home Army, or are active in modern political movements that venerate the Home Army? (To be clear, I am not suggesting thia. But to question an historian post-war service in the Polish state - decades prior to his authored work? That's a no go)Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is correct that this was a Stalinist propaganda officer, than I support of removal of his statements.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please cite precise policy grounds for this - how are his activities in the late 40s relevant to his historical research decades later ? Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And that's assuming there were "activities". François Robere (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a source critical of him, through not high quality ([5]). Need to research his bio more, through his work in his youth (?) and likely involvement with the Stalinist security apparatus is hardly commendable, this doesn't mean he is unreliable as a historian. Of course, it is likely he should be considered a rather POVed source, but I think he can be cited, just as on the other end of the spectrum, the very pro-Polish, PIS-line towing Polish historians that are now taking over IPN would be. (Through it's worth noting that what is happening to Polish history research now seems to have been the norm in Israel/YV for decades...). Hard to find neutral sources in this area, a lot of the work is done by historians who have axes to grind. A good rule of thumb is to assume anyone with a Polish/Jewish background here is biased, and the case of Krakowski seems to be just another illustration. (But again, I think he can be cited, but carefully). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A blog post by szpak80 on salon24? That's not usable for anything. Unless you have an actual RS referring to Krakowski as biased - preferably an academic source in English - performing OR via picking out random bio details decades prior to his research or using blogs is clearly out of line. Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly usable as a starting point for more research, and discussion, not very usable for citing. This discussion may belong on talk of Krakowski, since his tiny stub needs expanding (Polish article is longer but essentially unreferenced). I found a reliable source for some of his early life biography here: [6]. Note that right now I cannot find a reliable source for him being a political officer/commissar; but the source is sufficient for establishing he was an (likely junior?) employee of Ministry of Public Security (Poland), later a member of the People's Army, and a member of the Communist Party in Poland. Hopefully further sources will allow us to flesh that out. I again invite interested editors to expand Krakowski's bio with reliable sources. PS. From YV: "He then joined the Polish army and rose to the rank of major in the political division." [7] - I wonder if by the political division they mean pl:Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, the fact that Krakowski was a communist officer at some point is not a reason to consider him as unreliable. However, his research has been challenged as inaccurate and unreliable by modern scholars. And no, not by Polish scholars (well, by Polish scholars too, but I am sure certain individuals here would not consider this an issue). He has been described as by Joshua D. Zimmerman as follows (source: Joshua D. Zimmerman (5 June 2015). The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-107-01426-8.) "The negative portrayal of the Home Army among professional Jewish historians was made semi-official with the appearance in the early 1980s... with... Krakowski's volume, Unequal Victims... [who] concluded in their study that [Polish Undeground was mostly hostile towards the Jews and some armed units where involved in murder of Jews] Some historians began to challenge the prevailing assumptions in Jewish historiography in the late 1980s. In particular, Shmuel Krakowski's assertion that Home Army commander, General Bór-Komorowski, sanctioned assaults against Jewish partisans came under close scrutiny. The late Polish American historian, Stanislaus A. Blejwas, exposed errors in Krakowski's sources used to prove used to prove the Home Army commander's culpability. Blejwas cogently demonstrated that the actual document on combating banditry that was sent to local AK leaders – claimed by Krakowski to be an order to kill Jews–did not mention Jews at all (see [8], not sure how to get full digital text of that). John Lowell Armstrong concurred (see [9])." So, based on the assessment of newer scholarship, I think Krakowski should NOT be cited (and it would be nice if some editors engaged in the discussion here and on related topics would reconsider their views, as possibly, well, dated and representing a more biased scholarship views of the 1980s...). Zimmerman's book is a great overview of the different camps and changing opinions about the Home Army and the Polish Underground (if you cannot access more pages on Google Book, I got the book through Library Genesis in one minute...cheers for piracy). On an ending note, I like what Snyder has to say on this: "“...the record of the Home Army towards Jews is ambivalent". That's quite a good word to use here. (As well as his caution that the "“the dark legend [of older Jewish historiography hostile to Polish Underground] must be abandoned". It has as much place in our article as the (rightly) criticized works of scholars from "the camp of Polish historians devoted to defending wartime Poland’s record". Neither of such extremes makes for a good source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Krakowski continued writing well into the 2000s. As many historians (and acaddemics at large), some of his earlier interpretations have been challenged by others - e.g. the banditry order (116) has had varying views from the 1980s to present. If we are discussing order number 116 - a later source incorporating the subsequent discussion is probably best - e.g. Zimmerman who is recent - it far from clear cut (e.g. while pro-Polish sources point out Jews were never mentioned in the order, others have pointed out that this was euphemistic speak for Jews). Snyder is far from an unbiased source, to say the least.[10]. Many of Krakowski's works are considered authoritative - and are well cited. For order 116 we indeed have subsequent research and secondary/trietary coverage of the debate which incorporates further work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

the AK referred to fleeing Jews as "bandits"

the AK? What do you mean? If you mean the commander please write the commander of the AK. Apparently not all AK members referred this way and some of the members were Jewish.

The fleeing Jews had to eat and many of them weren't able to buy any food, so they robbed it and the locals defended their farms.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Antony Polonsky the AK saw Jewish fugitives as security risks - everyone saw Jewish fugitives as security risk, including other hiding Jews. Similarly any underground activities created security risk. Please explain that the security risk was a result of German Nazi terror in occupied Poland, not created by the AK. And this page is about the AK, not about general situation in occupied Poland or generally Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Fleeing Jews often helped other fleeing Jews. That aside, Polonsky also refers to the Bandit terminology (as do many others - in the context of the banditry order or otherwise) - e.g. here in relation to "individual Jewish fugitives" - - Local commanders and the High Command often referred to these pople (and also to COmmunist partisans) as "bandits", an echo of the language used by the Nazis themselves" Followed by a long quote of Bor-Komorowski in which he conflates (per Polonsky) communist partisans, ordinary robbers, and Jews. Per Polonsky this was pervasive terminology by the High Command and local commanders.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The source here relies on the debunked claims about a supposed "order" issued, according to Krakowski, by Bor Komorowski. No such order actually existed. And to the extent that Bor-Komorowski used the word "bandits" in some other writings, he was not referring to Jews. Krakowski cut up his quote to make it seem like it though. See here. This has been repeatedly pointed out. Hence, this is UNDUE and POV. Volunteer Marek 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Not true. The order (actually a report) existed, but it was passed up the chain of command rather than down. Debunked are the claims that it was a "kill order", not that it existed and that BK (seems to) have held that view at that time. Zimmerman, whose book's review you link, has a nuanced discussion of that. François Robere (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Fleeing Jews often helped other fleeing Jews. - please source often. How do you help, if your children are starving? The Kosinski family did quiote well (The Painted Bird is fiction), did they help any fleeing Jews?Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Biuletyn Informacyjny

The HA published Biuletyn Informacyjny, the biggest underground paper in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The Biuletyn was more liberal than average at that time. Thousands of people offered their lives to collect information, print and distribute the paper. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is mentioned later Most of underground press was symphathic towards Jews, does such general statement belong here? This page is about the HA.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Text has become undreadable mess after latest changes-formatting

This change made the whole text unreadable, there are now numerous numbers floating around the text making it completely unreadable and it looks like it is garbled part text part some computer code[11]. I think I saw this on other articles once before it was fixed and normal references returned. I will have to go reference by reference to restore its readability but would appreciate if somebody more skilled in coding would help, as I am not a skilled programmer. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Having multiple copies of common citations (eg. 5 copies of Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust and 10 copies of Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews in multiple formats) carries its own problems for style, maintenance and verifiability. However, changing template used for inline citations is relatively straightforward: I usually use {{r}}, but we can use {{sfn}} or anything else. Just pick. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer any style that keeps links to Google Book pages for easier verification, through yes, that creates multiple refs (numbers) for the same work. Sigh. Damned either way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia, technically speaking, sucks at managing references. We can do what's suggested here, but it would require some discipline on editors' behalf. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no Template:Paulsson 2002.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the article "good"?

The article is biased, it's main part is not the HA, but national conflicts and HA participation in them. Informations about the HA are short.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed

"In total, between 7,000- 8,000 to 10,000 Ukrainians perished in the territories of today's Poland."

This page is about the HA, not about Polish crimes, committed by many organisations. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

various troops (including these affiliated with the Home Army) - there was no HA at that time, do you mean previously affilaited or affiliated with the post-HA organisations?Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Postwar

The section lacks informations about the Armia Krajowa Obywatelska and Augustów roundup.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the Generation of Columbuses should be mentioned. Roman Bratny was a HA soldier, later a Communist propaganda activist (1980).Tadeusz Konwicki wrote a critical novel about his HA experiences, later joined anti-Communist opposition.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Snyder, cherry-picking, and attribution

Regarding this revert. Snyder writes the following - Probably the most significant way the Home Army and other Polish political organizations aided individuals Jews was by the production of false German documents. Their famous "paper mills" could generate German Kennkarten, indication that Jews were, in fact, Poles: "Aryan papers," as Jews called them at the time. Usually Poles took money or goods for this, but not always. Furthermore, Snyder belong to a particular historical came here,[12] and is making a claim not generally ascribed to the Home Army as a whole (as opposed to individual forgers turning a profit) - this should be attributed. That this was generally a service provided for cash or goods is explicitly and clearly stated by Snyder. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is about an army, not about helping civilians. Generally armies don't help civilians, they plunder, kill and rape. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"and was reluctant to prevent their genocide"

This is not what Polonsky in the cited source writes. -MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"It is probably unrealistic to have expected the Home Army - which was neither as well armed nor as well organized as its propaganda claimed - to have been able to do much to aid the Jews. The fact remains that its leadership did not want to do so." (there, p. 68). François Robere (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Zimmerman's book is the state of art. Why don't you quote it but use a memoir and a 2004 book?

The HA was reluctant to prevent genocide of Polish people. - the statement is equally true or false.

"It is probably unrealistic to have expected the Home Army - which was neither as well armed nor as well organized as its propaganda claimed - to have been able to do much to aid the Poles. The fact remains that its leadership did not want to do so." - equally true or false. The Home Army prepared an uprising, not preventing genocides. It's really funny to use the word genocide before it was proposed by Lemkin. What was knowledge of German criminal plans in 1941, 1942, 1943? Please compare limited HA activities against Zamojszczyzna expulsion/killing/Germanisation of children. The HA did very little to save Poles in Western Ukraine. Zychowicz attacks the HA [13].Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Women in the HA

The page ignores women. Such bias is innacceptable.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/12%20Article.htm Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I'm the only gender expert here.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cite error: The named reference Paulsson 2002 was invoked but never defined

Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Łączniczka

Female messenger? Perhaps the notion should be defined as a separate page. Thousands of łaczniczkas died or were imprisoned, messengers rather don't die. The women transported arms, illegal printings, messages.

Kurier (courier) was a person who travelled long distances, eg. Karski or Nowak. Here Nowak is described as emissary or envoy.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally a "courier" simply carries a message, while an "emissary" or "envoy" represents someone or something. François Robere (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

http://www.adalbertus.pl/en/2014/08/171/ Xx236 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Paper mills"

@Volunteer Marek: I'm not sure what's your objection to this.[14][15] (and that? [16]) It's sourced and representative of the source, so what's the problem? François Robere (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You're focusing on an aside in one book and insisting it be included in the article because it paints a certain POV. Vast majority of works on the subject do not bring it up, probably because it's well understood that a production of false papers in the conditions of a brutal occupation was very costly (in both existential and monetary terms). For example, the matter is discussed at length in this "Home+Army"+forged+documents&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii2ZmP8I_kAhUEb60KHaFHBUYQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q="Home%20Army"%20forged%20documents&f=false exhaustive volume by Michael Marrus and he doesn't bring it up. It's discussed in Zimmerman as well and also not raised as an important issue. Even Snyder mentions it as an aside. It would be strange for Wikipedia to emphasize a trivial aspect which the sources mostly do not. Maybe if this was a dedicated article on forged documents or something. But not here. It's cherry picked and UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Also not mentioned in Gilbert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah... no? It's in the main body of the text, in the place where he mentions "paper mills". There's no "cherry picking" or anything of the sort involved.

I'm not concerned with the mechanics of "paper mills". Snyder mentions it, Cooper mentions it (In the shadow of the Polish eagle, p. 94), and AFAIC that's enough.

It's only relevant here as "supplied" could suggests "free of charge", which wasn't the case. If you have a more neutral phrase I'm open to suggestions ("sold or supplied at cost"?).

the matter is discussed at length in this volume by Michael Marrus and he doesn't bring it up The article is by Prekerowa, and she does bring it up (p. 523): "The RPZ... did so free of charge while other organizations were normally charging their customers sums equal to their prime cost."

It's discussed in Zimmerman as well and also not raised as an important issue That's by Martin Gilbert, not Zimmerman. It quotes Antek's memoir, which doesn't mention paying for documents, but does mention some people sold them. François Robere (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Supplied" does not have to mean "free of charge"; it could mean "sold"; "bartered"; "provided for free". More often it means non-free. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So keep it as-is? François Robere (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually Poles took money or goods for this,

Please define "Poles" - you probably mean ethnic Poles. Do your sources confirm the ethnicity of the forgers?

If you write about an organization, the membership is crucial, not the ethnicity. By the way, the Home Army had Jewish members. Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a quote from a source, not our wording. François Robere (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bigotry and poor sourcing

I am undoing Piotrus' edit, as it introduced bigoted language. If we say Ukrainian fighters murdered Polish civilians, then we should say the same of the Home Army murdering Ukrainian civilians. If we say kill, both should be kill. But saying Polish Home Army killed or pacified civilians, but Ukrainians murdered is bigoted. Piotrus also introduced several horrendous a-historical sources that glorify supposed Polish heroism. www.polishresistance-ak.org for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Source review

This article needs many better sources. Let's consider some that have recently been removed (and readded):

1. [17] - non-peer reviewed but published by a reliable scholar (Anna M. Cienciala)
2. [18] 2004 article in maisntream Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) attributed to Andrzej Kaczynski (I can't find much info about him)

Those are IMHO passable. Should be replaced with higher quality sources, but they have either a reliable author or publisher.

1. [19] Anonymous publication on a blog

I support removal of this as clearly failing RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Course notes that cite Wikipedia itself? Really? That's your source here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither course notes nor newspapers are enough for this subject (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations). This is well-researched - there ought to be peer-reviewed or other high-quality scholarly sources available. François Robere (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I do recall you used newspaper as a source yourself, and quite recently too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

On current affairs, in an article 85% of which is on events from 2018 onwards. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss this source: lecture notes by historian Anna M. Cienciala available at [20]. The author is a respected academic. The notes are effectively self-published, but are cited by many other scholars ([21]) and even positively reviewed "I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm)." While I would say that such a source should not be used for WP:REDFLAG, I think it is entirely acceptable in regular circumstances, and its use here didn't raise any red flags, did it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I read link you give. It is an obiturary by a friend in the Polish review. The friend is happy her work on Poland is listed in Cienciala's bibliography. The link Cienciala's friend calls excellent is the bibliography, not lecture 16 you used. You want we use sources sympathetic to Ukraine in this page? I can find. They tell story of Home Army differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Remove --> style="width:98%;" <-- from wikitable User-duck (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You are good to go. Article is EC protected now. El_C 08:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was "poorly-sourced WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is an extraordinary claim and Wikipedia should not use Polish schoolbooks parroting Home Army veterans. Actual historians: "As Marcin Zaremba and other historians have pointed out, Poles killed more Jews than they did Germans during the occupation"[22]. Official German records from the Generalgouvernement show 1,300 Germans killed between 1939 and 1944, and another 2,000 to 9,000 in the August 1944 uprising.[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

JoeZ451, you removed sourced content--Seedsdough (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a Polish schoolbook, and if you are trusting Nazi German sources more, then we do have a problem. But you can take it to WP:RSN (I'll try to find some more sources for estimates, but no, I think I'll pass on using unreferenced claims from Nazi primary sources). You also removed Joshua Zimmerman, David Englel and Ney-Krawicz, all reliable scholars published in reliable venues, care to explain why? Also, can you tell us, Joe, what was your previous account name before you created this one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, you ask what was your previous account to Joe, but you don't ask Seedsdough? Come on. Asking that question to an editor with few edits who disagrees with you–but not asking another editor with even fewer edits who agrees with you–is almost like bullying behavior. Nobody should be asking an editor to disclose prior accounts in the middle of a content dispute. Even if the editor has prior accounts, suppose it's a clean start, it defeats the whole purpose of a clean start if the editor had to self-disclose. Or maybe they re-named for privacy reasons (like their first account was their real name) or to avoid harassment–this happens regularly, and you know this, you've been here a very long time. When I first got here a year ago, I was asked this question constantly, and it greatly put me off. In fact, it was exactly this that made me stop editing Holocaust related articles, and Israel/Palestine, and American Politics... I still never really returned to those areas. If you think it's a banned editor, you know where SPI is. Otherwise, please don't use the "what was your previous account" line with new editors. – Levivich 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The other suspicious account is not even participating in talk, what's the point of asking? But yes, SPI is a good idea, unless the account in question can tell us why we shouldn't bother. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Where are "Nazi German sources" and "Nazi primary sources" being used? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a suggestion to use them few posts above... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus is basing the text with the wild claims on the "London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association" and other wild claims from veterans. Historian Marcin Zaremba who analyzed German reports,[24] and is cited by other scholars,[25] is NOT a Nazi!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Your edit does not remove (nor does my readd) any sources related to the "London Branch" ([26]). Instead you remove reliable sources like Joshua Zimmerman, David Englel and Ney-Krawicz; you were asked to explain your editing in this regard and you have not done so. Please bear in mind WP:BRD and WP:EW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with K.e.coffman. Sources aren't good here, and scholarly sources give much lower figures. I dream of Maple (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz
  • What sources aren't good, and what sources give lower figures? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Please ping me if this is resolved early — please also ping me if the protection expires, so that I can restore the indefinite semi protection (I'm likely to forget). El_C 07:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In the end, I decided to go with extended-confirmed protection so as to deter new or dormant accounts from edit warring on the article mainspace. I may downgrade it further to semi at some point, but the duration is fixed as indefinite. El_C 08:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up

This edit: [27] is a follow up to my earlier edit here: [28]. These are exceptional claims for the following reasons: 

• For the Western Allies, the intelligence provided by the Home Army was considered to be the best source of information on the Eastern Front -- Western Allies had other sources of intelligence for the Eastern Front such as Ultra. If AK's intelligence was indeed the best source, such discussion would be found in books about Allied intelligence and/or the war effort by the Western Allies. I've not been able to find confirmation for this statement.

• Estimates of Axis fatalities due to operations by the Polish underground, of which the Home Army formed the bulk, range up to 150,000 -- this is an exceptional number. For comparison, German casualties in the Warsaw uprising were ~26,000: roughly 10,000 killed, 7,000 missing, and 9,000 wounded, per Hitler's Europe Ablaze (2014), the chapter on the resistance in Poland, by Paul Latawski. Assuming that missing troops were largely KIA, we'd need 8 more battles on the scale of the Warsaw rising to arrive at 150,000 German KIAs. (I note that Latawski's estimate appears to be in the higher range).

In any case, KIA troops are not generally how the effectiveness of WWII resistance is measured. Information/propaganda, intelligence, sabotage, attacking supply & communication lines, cooperation with advancing Allied forces, prevention of collaboration, state continuity, etc. are the themes from Hitler's Europe Ablaze where enemy KIAs are rarely discussed. For his part, Latawski concludes (I paraphrase) that the fact that Polish resistance was not crowned with "ultimate success" should not detract from the "impressive legacy" of the Underground state and the AK. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the claim about "best source of information", that you couldn't find other sources is unfortunate (Further reading for you: History_of_Polish_intelligence_services#1939–1945 Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Intelligence, through both of those needs much better referencing), but for a REDFLAG you need to find a contradictory source or otherwise prove the one we use is unreliable. pl:Marek Ney-Krwawicz cited for this claim is a reliable Polish historian, working in an established history research institution, and specializing in WWII/Home Army research, and a claim he makes in this work (a monograph on Home Army) carries weight since it is from an expert on the subject and from a work that is an in-depth study of said subject. I am also puzzled why you'd remove the reference and assessment by Stirling at al. ("Intelligence Cooperation Between Poland and Great Britain During World War II"), an in-depth study of this issue, and positively reviewed in a number of academic sources, which I'll cite in lieu of the book, since unfortunately I don't have access to it beyond Google snippets, before that I'll note that the sources concur that until this recent report (~ 2005) this was an understudied area, hence the contribution of Polish intelligence is likely ignored or undervalued in older historiography (from the snippet on p.32 which seems to discuss communist government lack of interest into research into Home Army intelligence contributions: "This tendency influenced the unwillingness to recognize the disproportionally large contribution of Polish Intelligence to the Allied victory over Germany"). Anyway: ([29] "a government in exile created what appears to be an exemplary intelligence structure"... "of 80,000 reports generated by the Polish stations, over 85 percent were deemed of very high or high quality", [30] "The authors furthermore reveal the role and contribution of Poles to be considerably greater than even such stunning gains suggest"..." British services were ill-prepared for the war, having few assets in Central and Eastern Europe, the very regions that became the cockpit of this conflagration. Polish stations and personnel, which were salvaged from the cataclysm of September 1939, filled this void until December 1944, when the Red Army's advance rendered such activity nugatory, while subjecting agents to Soviet repression. At the request of Allied services, Polish agents collected data on the Reich and occupied territories with respect to German Army dispositions, the movement of ships and activity in shipyards, the construction of aircraft and location of airfields, the economic situation and industrial production, as well as military and civilian morale"), [31] "for the British, following France's capitulation the Poles were the only allied intelligence assets on the Continent for many years."). Also, from this book, citing that study, " The Poles were in a unique position since their presence... enabled them to gather information to a degree unequalled by any other power. This contribution was quantified in a British report in 1945: it claimed that of the 45,770 intelligence reports from occupied Europe processed by the Allies during the war, 22,047, or 48 per cent, emanated from Polish sources.". And since you mention Ultra, let's not forget Polish assets were involved in this as well, so such a generalization also is likely to include this as well. Anyway, given that, I think that there is plenty of academic research suggesting that qualification of Polish intelligence contributions you removed is justified.

As for the estimate of 150k, unless we can find a comparative estimate, I think we can only attribute them. I do think it is likely an upper range estimate (or, in other words, yes, overestimated), but we need a scholar who clearly produces a different number, not to try to guess from our own extrapolation of data, that's WP:OR because 'we, resident expert Wikipedians, think so'. Let me stress that I'd really prefer to replace this by an estimate from a better expert/source, but until we find a better source, this is what we have, and it is clearly reliable (author, publisher, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Compromise? We attribute the intel claim, as specialist writing on the Home Army is unable to address wider intel situation from other sources. We attribute the 150k, and place along side it the estimate, brought up below, of 10,000 for Polish resistance (5,000 1940-1944, another 5,000 in uprising) by historian Jan Gross from Transitional Justice and the Former Soviet Union: Reviewing the Past, Looking Toward the Future, page 69: [32]. --I dream of Maple (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think everything in question is now attributed. The link doesn't work for me (takes me to book cover), so if you could provide a page number and preferably a paragraph containing the citation here, since I am not clear on what those estimates you cite are for? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

German casualties inflicted by the Home Army

I spend some time looking for a good estimate. First, the source we use for 150,000 states "...the Polish resistance movement was arguably the most effective of any established in a Nazi-occupied country. Some 150,000 Germans, including top SS officials, wre killed in Poland." Raymond Taras (19 February 2018). Democracy In Poland: Second Edition. Taylor & Francis. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-429-98067-1. That source seems reliable (Raymond Taras, Routledge, etc.), through it is not an in-depth analysis. It also generalizes to the losses inflicted by various partisan forces, but AK represented over 90% of Polish partisans anyway. It is also worth keeping in mind that reliable sources can, of course, repeat errors (such as communist-era inflated propaganda estimates). What is Taras' source we have no idea, since he doesn't cite any. I found some unreliable (forum, etc.) discussions in Polish which suggest that the number 150k is an inflated estimate that actually doesn't come from communist propaganda but from post-war Polish emigre research that wasn't very reliable, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to cite, all I found for this is forum chat with no sources. As for what I found in regards to other estimates, it is not much. Polish Wikikipedia at pl:Armia Krajowa has a reliable source but only for partial period of August 1942 to September 1944 (pl:Andrzej Leon Sowa, „Kto wydał wyrok na miasto. Plany operacyjne ZWZ-AK (1940 – 1944) that states that "German sources listed casualties of 9671 Germans and 11481 Polish and Ukrainian collaborators as victims of the Home Army". Note that this estimates includes non-Germans, which Taras does not seem to to (but he can be generalizing, of course); Special Courts are responsible for about ~2,5k confirmed executions on collaborators. Some might have been Volksdeutsche and therefore qualify for both estimates anyway. There is the issue that such casualties may be limited only to what Germans recognized as 'Poland', i.e General Government, while the resistance was also active in other territories (I don't have access to that book so I can't see its analysis, if any). Further, needless to say, German casualty numbers were under-reported (ex. for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Germans official casualties were listed as 17 fatalities, while resistance reported inflicting 300, the latter number is for example repeated in Micheal Clodfelter (9 May 2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th ed. McFarland. pp. 466–. ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7. and see also Mark Nepo (17 July 2018). More Together Than Alone: Discovering the Power and Spirit of Community in Our Lives and in the World. Atria Books. pp. 226–. ISBN 978-1-5011-6785-0. for both numbers.) For the larger Warsaw Uprising (see infobox), German casualty figures are reported from 2k to 17k, that's a very wide range (and for a conflict that is heavily studied). Few more estimates. An estimate for German losses in what is likely the largest anti-partisan operation in rural areas (Sturmwind I and II) in Poland, according to [33], is 1,300. Anyway, on to other estimates, the short version is I failed to find anything in reliable sources that's more precises. German_casualties_in_World_War_II as far as I can tell is totally mum when it comes to discussing partisan-inflicted casualties on any front outside a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but again methodology and such is unclear; and as another editor pointed at out milhist when I asked it could have nothing to with partisans at all), and neither is Battle casualties of World War II of any help here. I checked Polish online encyclopedias (PWN, etc.) entries on AK but they don't contain estimates of casualties it might have inflicted.Given that, while I have concerns about the number 150k, it is nonetheless published in a reliable source, and is the only estimate we have (it is tough to call something a redflag without a single source to contradict it, 'gut feeling' will not do), so unless someone can find other estimates, it's hard to justify discarding it 'because we think it may be incorrect'. It might very well be a gross overestimate, but we need sources that provide better estimate or debunk that number; barring that the best compromise I can suggest for now is to attribute this number to Raymond Taras.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Taras' book is on political science and on modern democratization, not WWII history. He has a short segment on Polish beliefs on their history, and the extremely high probably comes from a Home Army veteran organization. JoeZ pointed out a historical source above: Ethnic Cleansing and Nationalization in the German-Polish and German-Czech Borderlands in German Studies Review that says: "As Marcin Zaremba and other historians have pointed out, Poles killed more Jews than they did Germans during the occupation (excluding the September 1939 campaign and before the Warsaw Uprising of 1944), and the lessons were carried on in a “fourth phase of the Holocaust” after the war.". Zaremba gives detailed figures in an interview here: [34] in Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, 1300 Germans + 900 helpers in 1939-1944 and an additional 2,000-9,000 in Warsaw 1944. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Now that's a rather shocking REDFLAG claim. And attributed to a German-language WP:INTERVIEW on a blog ("ostblogger", [35]). The article suggests he made this claim in 2017, but I couldn't find any relent scholarly work of his from that year; it is not listed on his uni homepage [36]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

MDR is not blog. German Studies Review is scholarly journal. [37], page 69, Mark Kramer in book published by Cambridge University Press, tells of estimate by Jan T. Gross. Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. The book tells that these crimes and inconsequential effect on Germans are politically sensitive in Poland itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

The statement is too ambigious and compares apples and oranges. For starters it compares German military deaths while ignoring German civilian deaths to unspecified number of Jews killed. It isn't clear if these are only Jewish civilians or also members collaborator groups that were executed and partisant militias that died in fighting.Comparing military deaths vs civilian deaths will for obvious reasons be always extremely flawed and usually isn't done, as it is quite self-explenatory that military deaths vs civilian deaths will always be lower. If we would include German civilian deaths, I wouldn't be so sure about the statement since in September 1939 the estimate claimed by some historians is 5,000 and from 1944 quite wide range of estimates reaching up to 400,000 deaths in most reliable estitmates as far as I remember. The statement also doesn't state about Polish Home Army but again uses ambigious term Poles, if it means Polish citizens rather than ethnic Poles than it would include ethnic Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Jews with Polish citizenship who were involved in various groups engaged in Holocaust and executions, or simply civilians-and is simply too wide group of various different factions to group them meaningfully all together.Lastly it doesn't include those killed indirectly.So to summ up, it is just to general statement that has no substance in it, and really doesn't hold up together unders scrutiny-comparing military deaths vs civilian deaths, while ignoring German civilian deaths for example.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Gross tells Poles killed more Jews than Germans. Germans killed are 17000 in the 1939 invasion, 5000 in next four years, 5000 in Warsaw uprising. So at most 10000 for Polish resistance. Interesting. Is Gross comparing German military deaths vs Jewish civilian deaths while ignoring German civilian deaths or does he give estimate of number of Jewish militia and partistan members that Gross claims Polish resistance killed in fighting? Are there also any estimates Gross gives for number of German military casualties inflicted by Jewish resitance vs number of Jewish civilians killed directly and indirectly by Jewish collaborators?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the GSR is a peer reviewed if it plainly cites a blog/interview. WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, wP:REDFLAG, etc. We can take it to WP:RSN if you'd like. Also, I recommend using expert historians and top notch academic venues; one of the best in the field is the Institute of National Remembrance, a Polish historical institution that specializes in WWII topics. Unfortunately, a lot of their research is in Polish only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, I didn't read the source, and I am not going to go into details, but what you are saying demonstrates that you don't understand our content policy. It is not ok to use blogs etc in Wikipedia, however, it is quite normal when reliable sources use primary sources. It is a part of historian's job to deal with questionable primary sources in attempt to find reasonable information from them. By default, all historical and other primary sources should be considered unreliable, but professionals are expected to know how to work with them. However, if this topic falls under WP:REDFLAG, this source can be rejected, provided but only provided, that this is the only source that supports an extraordinary claim. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul: but this is exactly the case. That claim (that Poles killed more Jews than Germans) is extraordinary and not repeated by mainstream historians. A minor historian mentions it in an interview then gets cited in a minor journal. WP:FRINGE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, you are misleading, nothing red flag but mainstream research. User:Paul Siebert, Jan T. Gross is a major scholar. And he only repeated well established research by historian Marcin Zaremba: "this is the conclusion drawn by Marcin Zaremba: ‘Until 1944, the German losses on the territory of occupied Poland did not exceed 3,000. Thus … we were not on the side, on which it seemed to us that we actually were, because we killed more Jews than Germans.’" in [38] published in Holocaust Studies journal. Zaremba and Gross are quoted by other scholars. Anyway, this gives us a number for Germans killed: less than 3,000 from beginning of occupation to 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Misleading? You claim Gross mentions the number 3,000 but he does not, at least not in the article you link, which is by pl:Elżbieta Janicka, an amateur historian and a professional photographer. And she attributes this claim to Zaremba: "Marcin Zaremba, ‘Biedni Polacy na ˙zniwach’ [Poor Poles at the Harvest], Gazeta Wyborcza, 15–16 January 2011, 22", so again, the underlying source is not a peer reviewed paper but another newspaper article. Which part of WP:FRINGE do you refuse to understand? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

[39] Holocaust Studies journal published by Taylor & Francis is not "FRINGE". German Studies Review is not "FRINGE". [40] Cambridge University Press is not "FRINGE". What western and new Polish historians tell should be in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

If you keep misunderstanding what others write, not to say keep making straw man arguments, which could end up at AE, there is little to talk about. FRINGE refers to the particular claim, not a venue it was published in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you keep on dismissing mainstream authors published in mainstream publications, in English, as "FRINGE" then you shall end up at AE. Calling these "Nazi German sources": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=929483428&oldid=929454048 will not go down well. Leave your personal feelings aside, and find a way to incorporate the prevailing mainstream estimates here, which are a few thousands of Germans killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

AK and Jews

This article is missing one key point: that the majority of postwar Jewish testimony has a negative view of AK (according to an analysis by Joshua D. Zimmerman, author of The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945). According to Zimmerman, "the widely held view in collective Jewish memory and Jewish historiography that the Home army was hostile is largely confirmed" by his analysis of the testimony of Holocaust survivors, although he notes that 30% of survivors had positive interactions with AK. Zimmerman also states (p. 5) that "In rare instances, Jews fought openly in the Home army without concealing their background". Zimmerman also states that Tadeusz Komorowski reversed the policies of helping Jews in ghettos and favored excluding them from Home Army ranks (pp. 15–16), also

With a chilling indifference towards their fate, Komorowski characterized Jewish partisans as communist, pro-Soviet elements, an attitude that gave local Home army units (especially in the northeastern provinces where the Polish-Soviet conflict was most acute) a green light to treat Jews any way they wished. This is exemplified in Komorowski’s well-known Organizational Report No. 220 to his superiors in London in which he condemns Jewish partisans for requisitioning foodstuffs from Polish peasants without any sympathy for their predicament. (p. 17)

Overall, Zimmerman says that

The present examination of the attitude and behavior of the Home Army towards the Jews reveals both profoundly disturbing acts of violence as well as extraordinary acts of aid and compassion. Evidence of wrongdoing (and to a lesser degree, of assistance) within the Home Army has mounted in recent years with the body of research published by such Polish historians as Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Alina Skibińska, Jerzy Mazurek, Tadeusz Markiel, Adam Puławski, Marcin Urynowicz, and Dariusz Libionka.114 These Polish historians are revising the old, decidedly positive view prevalent in Polish scholarship prior to the twenty-first century (p. 20)

I can provide this paper to anyone who wants it. buidhe 07:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Not sure it is misleading, we say the relation was controversial. Zimmerman is a recognized expert on this, so a reliable source; how would you suggest to change the current article? WP:BEBOLD and edit it if you have a good way of rephrasing something you think is misleading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Zimmerman puts it perfect. He tells how some Polish historians overlooked AK's anti-Jewish violence or praised it. He tells of new Polish historians who follow Western history. And he tells that the west had: "decidedly negative views of the Polish Underground as endemically anti-Semitic". Some new historians in the West accept some good among mostly anti-Jewish. This article uses old Polish historians, and not newer research or wider academia in West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Which 'old Polish historians' are used for any potentially controversial claims in the section on Polish-Jewish relationships? Please be specific. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comments: German casualties

There is a clear consensus that neither A nor B should be included in the article.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should appear in the article:

A. Raymond Taras has provided an estimate of 150,000 for Axis fatalities incurred due to operations by the Polish underground (however, estimates of guerrilla-inflicted casualties often have a wide margin of error).

B. According to historian Marcin Zaremba, until 1944 Germans losses in occupied Poland were lower than 3,000. Historian Jan T. Gross estimates that Poles killed 5,000 Germans in 1940-1944 and another 5,000 in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising.

A+B

None

16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

citations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Comments

• B. Not A, because Taras is not a history book, he is writing political science on Poland returning to democracy in the 90s, and this is background. It has no citation and its provenance is uncertain, maybe Home Army vet stories. The second citation, Laqueur is misused. Laqueur states that partisans wildly overstate their effectiveness. He doesn't say it is difficult to estimate, but that the claims of the partisans are wildly overstated. He gives as an example the 400,000 troops Home Army commander General Bor Komorowski claims. Laqueur says that maybe there were sympathizers in that amount, but actual armed troops? Maybe one percent (4,000) in 1943, perhaps 5-10 percent in 1944 (20,000-40,000). On the other hand, B is sourced to historians specializing in Polish history of the Great Patriotic War (Zaremba, Gross). These historians are quoted by other scholars (The citations) .JoeZ451 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Fixed typo + clarified.JoeZ451 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

  Judging from the quote, this representation of Taras is misleading. "Germans" might include Volkesdeutshe noncombatants and he does not attribute all these killings to AK, which was not the only Polish resistance group. Oppose A for this reason. buidhe 16:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear where Taras got this from. It isn't his own research and he has no inline citation at that portion of the paragraph. I don't see it on other Wikipedias. Maybe it is an AK story, but even if you add up Ukrainian, local ethnic Germans, Jews, and Belarussian victims of the AK, scholarship I know don't reach this number for the AK.JoeZ451 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

• Neither A nor B. This was discussed a few sections above. A is likely inaccurate, but so is B. Estimates of losses inflicted by partisans and such are very problematic, to say the least. Neither Zarema nor Gross are experts on Armia Krajowa. Nor is Taras, for that matter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neither. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• @JoeZ451: Please trim down the opening statement - at over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. Remember that it is the wikimarkup that counts to the total, and so the five references contribute a significant proportion. Is it necessary to include so much text in the refs? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I can't trim the two texts, but I moved all the citation markup down below the signature. Does that solve Legbot and WP:RFS? The citations can be moved wherever if it needs to be moved more.JoeZ451 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

  Yes, this is the effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A appears to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Unless Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study is talking directly about the statistical problems with determining casualties for this event, then we cannot juxtapose his general statement about guerrilla conflict with this very specific info on this topic. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neither A nor B Both are inaccurate and on the extreme side of estimates. Gross estimate is below official German accounts of losses in General Gouvernment alone(without including Warsaw Uprising) between 1942 and 1944(and these were notorious for lowering their casualties when fighting resistance).

To quote:According to the incomplete data filed by the Wehrmacht the German losses in the fighting against the Polish resistance only within the GG and only in the period of August 1942 to December 1944 amounted to 11,491 men, including 6,722 Wehrmacht soldiers, 2,805 SS and police troopers, and 1,984 Reichsdeutsch and Volksdeutsch men Polish Resistance Movement in Poland and Abroad, 1939-1945 PWN--Polish Scientific Publishers, 1987m Stanisław Okęcki. Page 156. The figure above is just official claims by Nazi Germany and doesn't include losses before August 1942, outside General Gouvernment in annexed territories of Poland and Eastern Poland(for example in Operation Tempest). To compare IIRC the German losses in the West during occupation were circa 22,000 dead and missing and in the Balkans 36,000 but I would have to check this. In general the estimates in this area would be hard to identify, besides Home Army there were other resistance groups and it is doubtful a very precise estimate can be made that that can attribute the losses to one or the other resistance group. I would also recommend two publications on the subject

M. Zgórniak, Ruch oporu i walki partyzanckie oraz straty polskie i niemieckie w świetle sprawozdań niemieckiego Dowództwa Wojskowego w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie (1 I 1943 - 15 I 1945) in Prace Komisji Historii Wojen i Wojskowości PAU volumee V, Kraków, 2009

Walka zbrojna i działalność polskiego ruchu oporu w świetle dokumentów niemieckich 1939-1945, Muzeum Historii Polskiego Ruchu Ludowego, Stowarzyszenie Historyków Wojskowości, Warszawa 2018.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Neither Tarab and Zaremba aren't specialists in the Second World War. Gross is, but his work attracted so much attention precisely because it was substantially different from previous scholarship so I have WP:UNDUE concerns. Would like to see some broad agreement among RSs before adding a single number.

Also "Polish history of the Great Patriotic War" is an... interesting choice of words. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• C ban the icewhiz sock 2600:1014:B1BF:C29E:4CFA:33F9:FF0D:701A (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Socks of indef banned editors should indeed be banned, but can you clarify who do you think is the sock and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA reassessment

Home Army

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist With apologies to Piotrus. First because it has taken so long for someone to close this and second because it unfortunately ends in a delist. The article currently has 9 better source needed tags. I understand that the sourcing requirements changed after you wrote this article, but they were changed at ARBCOM level and there was no grandfather clause. Many of the other comments go beyond the GA criteria or have been addressed. I hope you can address the sourcing issues and renominate it in the future Aircorn (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)}

@Aircorn I mostly agree with you, but I could point to a technicality that IIRC nobody has brought that section/source here, and so it slipped everyone's mind. If it was brought up, someone, perhaps me, might have taken a stab at improving this. That said, I agree that this needs to be referenced better, a single newspaper article is not "good" enough, ArbCom is not relevant - we simply need more scholarly sources for that section, it's common sense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

The article needs a reassessment due to longstanding issues with sources that do not meet the subject-specific sourcing requirements, a lead that does not meet MOS:LEAD, and various other cleanup tags. These prevent it from reaching the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing requirement you list is much newer than the article, through updating the few newpspaer sources to more academic one is a good practice. Can you be more clear about the problems with the lead? And it had no tags until you added a few, mostly about low quality sources. This should not be hard to fix. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Before I added a few additional tags earlier today[41], there was already a "vague" tag in the lead, and at least 18 tags for sourcing issues (cn or better source needed). The lead is six paragraphs; per MOS:LEAD it should be four or less. The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV concerns, and rely heavily on Grzegorz Motyka, who adheres to the theory (not universally accepted) that Ukrainians killings of Poles constituted a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Easy to fix, although I don't see a problem with the Ukrainian section. Are there some key works in the field we are missing? Is there some criticism of Motyka that is missing from his article? As far as I know, he is considered to be an expert in the field and reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to present Home Army actions in a favorable light compared to Ukrainian actions, even though HA was also responsible for (smaller scale) killings of Ukrainian civilians. Home Army commanders apparently criticized such killings, and "forbade the killing of Ukrainian women and children". Is this accepted, disputed, due or not due weight? I don't know because only one side of the story is being told here. The article also uses the vague term "Banderites" when it should specify which organization or faction was responsible. The "Relations with the Soviets" section also cites almost entirely right-wing Polish historians. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, the bias here is according to whom? You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Other sources certainly exist:

In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population

— Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2): 336–363. doi:10.1177/0022009410392409.

Snyder writes that AK sided with Red Army against Ukrainian forces:

Thousands of Polish men and women escaped to the Volhynian marshes and forests in 1943, joining Soviet partisan armies fighting the UPA and the Wehrmacht.34 At the same time, some Poles took revenge on Ukrainians who had been serving as German policemen... Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages.... Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand.37 In July 1944, the Red Army (aided by the AK) drove the Germans from Lviv.

— Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi:10.1162/15203979952559531.

See also this book around page 233: Liber, George (2016). Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-2144-2. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to add something from this to the article, but I think all the important facts are already mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, what I see here is a POV issue not a coverage issue. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And I don't see a POV issue here. Neiter does Molobo below. We can of coruse wait and see what others say. I have no problem with addressing the POV, once sources are found that show that this section is biased. Just criticizing it for using Polish sources is not helpful. Foreign language sources are permitted, and we don't have a quota system where an article or section is considered non-neutral if it uses primaralily sources from one country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You stated, You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. Once I do that, you still insist that there is no issue? Parts of this read like apologia rather than an encyclopedia article: our article on the Wehrmacht doesn't say, "one Wehrmacht commander objected to war crimes and ordered his soldiers not to commit any". Again, I wasn't the one who tagged this section for POV issues and the issue needs to be resolved to stay a GA article. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate that there is anything substantial missing or that there is bias. Once agian, the fact that the article uses Polish sources does not mean it is biased. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV

Sorry, what is the ground on which you allege NPOV? Only thing you mentioned in the sentence is Polish nationality, which by itself upon no circumstances can be seen as ground to doubt a historian. We do not judge historians based on their ethnicity or nationality.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, there are substantial differences in how Ukrainians and Poles view this conflict. The Polish government—and the main historian who is supplying many of the citations in this section—calls it a genocide, but this is not much accepted outside of Poland as far as I can tell. In order to provide NPOV, it is essential to ensure that all perspectives are represented according to their due weight. Similarly, I doubt you could write a NPOV article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based exclusively on sources created by one side. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

All issues have been fixed, including a rewrite to the Ukrainian section using at least one of the sources linked above. The only remaining issue is to add better sources than the newspaper article for the cursed soldiers section, although since nobody pointed out any errors, and the newspaper is considered mainstream and reliable, I don't think it is a major issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Brigade Piron

In addition to the concerns cited above, I would also suggest that this article needs a cleanup to meet GA standards. In particular:

1. Images (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). There are quite a few images used in this article but most appear to serve a decorative function and do not seem particularly relevant to their surrounding text. In fact, the inevitable preponderance of photos of the 1944-45 period gives a rather distorting feel to the article. I think this is the most important issue with the article as it stands - it is better to have fewer, more appropriate images if necessary.
2. Prestige-based claims (WP:PUFFERY) I sympathise with the difficulty in avoiding the temptation of showcasing particular plaudits but I think the article goes too far as it is. Home Army#Intelligence has several examples of this but actually tells us relatively little about what intelligence gathering actually consisted of, how it was organised, whether it changed over time, how it was communicated to the Allies, etc. which are clearly more important to the reader. Although certainly defensible, the showcasing of medals and memorials in the images arguably contributes to this sense. It may also touch on the NPOV issue highlighted above.
3. Omission. Underground media in German-occupied Europe had huge symbolic importance but Polish underground press does not even seem to be linked. I find it very surprising that this aspect receives such minimal coverage. Equally, Home Army#Assassinations of Nazi leaders seems oddly incomplete. I do not know much about the Polish case, but I'd imagine that these operations were fairly rare because of large-scale German reprisal killings but there is no mention of this. I was also surprised by the lack of discussion of the nature of the relationship between the government in London and the AK.
4. Tone (WP:TONE and WP:EMPHATIC). Again, this may touch on the NPOV issue identified above. There are plenty of instances of word-choices which, although small, contribute to the sense of particular sympathy with one side rather than the other. For example, in Home Army#Postwar there is "the Soviet threat", "a number of such broken promises", "increasing persecution", "a major victory", "locked up in communist prisons", etc. These could easily be rephrase in more neutral language. If the problem is linguistic, it might be worth getting the WP:GUILD involved? There are also a few places in which the language seems rather stilted.

Please accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are, of course, only a personal opinion and I admit to having little grounding in the Polish literature on the subject. I would urge that a copy-edit is requested as a particular priority, however. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping Piotrus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Thank you for the comments. Would you mind suggesting images for removal? For the intelligence section, I think it is pretty well written, and if you could be more specific which sentences you think are redundant, I'd appreciate it. Regarding the underground press, the article currently states 'The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000'. I agree this could be expanded with more content and links - I will try to do it in the near future. For assassination, that section was longer in the past but I shortened it as I couldn't verify some claims. Operation Heads is longer but poorly referenced. I can see if I can find something more to add here in the future. As for non-neutral tone, I will ping User:Nihil novi and see if he feels like anything can be improved, I read your examples above but I am not sure I see how they can be made more neutral. Soviets were a threat to AK, they broke some promises, and increasingly persecuted, locked AK members in prisons (and often, much worse - summary or staged trials and executions were a norm), etc. I think those are neutral facts, and I don't think the wording cited is biased, but I am open to discuss this further, as I certainly agree less involved editors are better at detecting bias in such cases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed you do not see any real basis for any of my comments. For example, I note that at least half of all the non-biographic images in the article unambiguously depict the Warsaw Uprising and associated operations. The inclusion of "Soldiers of Kedyw Kolegium A" (all conspicuously male!) in the section on Home Army#Women in the Home Army is probably the most blatant example of disconnection between the article and its images. It cultivates the false impression that the uniformed and armed partisan-style warfare in 1944 was typical of the earlier period too. As to the others, I really don't see how I can clarify them further without simply repeating my points. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you do not agree with?

After a certain amount of reflection, I think the problems above really stem from the abandoning of a more chronology-based structure in Home Army#History and operations in favour of the current thematic approach. As I see it, there are really four "phases" of the AK's history which are really entirely different - (i) the emergence of resistance and its consolidation between 1939 and 1943/44, (ii) its increasingly ambitious operations in 1944 and 1945 and their ultimate defeat, (iii) its early relationship with the Soviets and the post-war repression and (iv) its subsequent legacy and rehabilitation etc. This seems more natural if the article was reworked around this structure. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: I'm a bit disappointed you see my friendly requests for clarification as some disagreement. I never said I see "no real basis" for your comments, on the contrary, I said above they are welcome and valuable, I just asked you to provide more examples. Since - see comment by NN below - here's a copyeditor, whom I believe to be a native speaker, who also has trouble seeing the neutrality problems in tone. Let's try to work together here (since I value your input), and for that, sometimes you need to explain what seems obvious to you, as it is not always obvious to others. So let's backtrack and resume, shall we? I appreciate your volunteering to help, and I hope you don't mind if I or others say we don't fully understand some things.

Now, I have removed two images and moved another one (good comment about the women section, I never noticed this but it clearly wasn't the best placement for that image; I have replaced it with another image which I think shows a female AK soldier). Feel free to be bold and remove any other excess images, or replace them with better ones. You are also correct about the chronology/sections. I have separated history and operations, which indeed do not warrant merging. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, I am sorry if my previous comment sounded sarcastic. As you say, let's backtrack and deal with one issue at a time. I think the restructuring so far is already a big improvement, although a discrete section is really needed between the current Home Army#World War II and Home Army#Postwar sections dealing with the Warsaw Uprising and 1944-45 period.

As regards the pictures, I do think that the over-representation of Warsaw Uprising pictures is quite noticeable at the moment in view of how little prose is currently devoted to the subject. At the moment, the following pictures with a direct connection to the Warsaw Uprising are included:

• File:Band of Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa).PNG - the current caption is really too vague to be useful, but my understanding of this kind of insignia in Western Europe would be that it was worn in the Liberation period only if not long after the war. Note too that the AK's icon is already shown in the infobox anyway.
• File:26PPAK relief Warsaw Uprising.jpg - this is a non-free file and, by virtue of its size and subject, not a particularly helpful one although I do see the logic of the subject within the article as a whole.
• File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg - why is this poster significant, since this what our attention is currently drawn to in the caption? what points does it make or corroborate?
• File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg - another non-free file and not one I think we could justify using on the basis of the currently stated justification. Even if it was, I am not convinced it adds anything to the article.
• File:MWP Kubus 3.JPG - I see the logic of including this as a picture but its significance is not really addressed either in the text or caption
• File:Błyskawica and other insurgent weapons.jpg - this is really another Warsaw Uprising picture although not currently attested as such. Is the important thing in it the Błyskawica sub-machine gun, as per the caption? If so, we need to know why this is important and more specific pictures are probably available.
• File:Filipinka sidolówka.jpg - the grenades in question are mentioned in the article, but what does this picture add? Is the fact that the AK developed its own rudimentary hand-grenades important enough to showcase this prominently in the article, especially given the two other pictures of improvised weapons above?

I have ignored the new picture of the female AK members which seems reasonable. I would also add to the list:

• File:Gesiowka commemorative plaque at 34 Anielewicza Street.JPG - is this a notable memorial? If not, what does it add that could not be done with prose? Why is it important?

The foregoing list is really set out to encourage some reflection on why the images should be included and I offer no judgments on this, other than to say that 2-3 images of the Warsaw Uprising would seem a normal proportion for an article of this size even considering the historical importance of the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Thank you for taking care to point to specific pictures. I removed several, leaving for now File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg (since it shows both a poster and a female soldier, two interesting things in one image - here my logic is the same as NN's below, as he commented on that one pic already). For Kubus/Blyskawica/grenades, I commented the grenade one out. They do illustrate concepts discussed in the text, but the grenades one doesn't really add anything, but the two others do illustrate mentioned concepts and I don't think they clutter the section too much otherwise. As for the plaque, I am tempted to replace it with a zoomed-out picture at commons:Category:„Gęsiówka” commemorative plaque at Anielewicza Street in Warsaw. I think it is in a section of the article that is not cluttered with other pics, and it shows an example of post-war commemoration and is relevant to the Polish-Jewish section (added bonus that it is in three languages). (Perhaps the image should be moved a bit down to the 'The Warsaw ghetto uprising' section that mentions it, but it would put it closer to another image...?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, I do think it's an improvement. To clarify my broader point about the pictures, there are really two entirely different issues. The first is that the visual over-emphasis on the Warsaw Uprising tacitly implies that it was typical of the other activities conducted by the AK during the war which is clearly wrong, but certainly not unique to this (or Polish) articles (cf the obvious focus on the summer of 1944 in the images at French Resistance!). I am happy that this has been pretty much addressed. The second issue, more pressingly, is that the pictures do not engage with the text. Any of the images I mentioned (and many others) could be justified in principle as long as the prose engaged with their significance. For example, the Kubuś is an excellent illustration of the degree of planning made ahead of the Warsaw Uprising and the degree of co-ordination achieved by the AK itself - but this is not apparent from the current explanation that "the difficult conditions meant that only infantry forces armed with light weapons could be fielded. Any use of artillery, armor or aircraft was impossible (except for a few instances during the Warsaw Uprising, such as the Kubuś armored car)". Do you see what I mean? This aspect still needs some work. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd add that File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg really does need to be removed for copyright reasons. There is no way that the current stated "purpose of use" is sufficient to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Feel free to replace it with another image if you think it helpful. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: and Nihil novi, I realise that this discussion has lapsed which is a shame. I have taken the liberty of nominating it for a copy edit myself at WP:GOCE/REQ which may take some time to produce results. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not opposed to the removal of the image, although let's face it, any copyright concerns here are pure meta:copyright paranoia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this kind of argument in general, but the cited rationale is probably the worst I have ever seen. It currently states that its rationale for inclusion is: "Shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed" and states that it is "irreplaceable". Even if this was legit, it seems a bit rich since there are already two other pictures in the same article which also clearly do the same thing! I feel this issue has been addressed now, but this still leaves the others I originally raised. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean the tone? I hope the request the GoCE will help, as NN (below) already looked at this and doesn't see a problem, and neither do I. Sometimes tone is a very subjective issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a subjective issue, it's a basic wikipedia policy requirement to be WP:IMPARTIAL. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And in my opinion, which I think User:Nihil novi shares, it already is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: the tone is absolutely fine - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If that really is your opinion, I do not think you have read the article properly. There are dozens of examples of non-neutral and/or non-encyclopedic phrasing. As well as the various cases mentioned above and many others like them, I missed our current award to Witold Pilecki of the epithet "the hero of Auschwitz". I also note that the Lede currently offers "[t]he Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators" as the only summary of the lengthy and rather more ambiguous sections on "Relations with other factions"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I’ve read the article carefully (if your above comment is directed at me), but I got your points, and I'm afraid I still have to disagree. Pilecki is described as a hero by RS...[42] however, if you want to work on more comprehensive/encyclopedic wording, I'm for it..give it a try but keep RS is mind, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This comment betrays an incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV—read it again. Wikipedia avoids value-judgement terms like "hero", "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" in our own voice, regardless of whether sources use them. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote - ...regardless of whether sources use them --> where do you see that Buidhe?? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, "[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (WP:IMPARTIAL). This must include whether he has been described as a hero. This is really fundamental to Wikipedia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the cited source doesn't use the word hero, at least I don't see it, I removed it. If some other reliable source uses it, it could be restored with an attribution ("described as hero by ..."). Thanks for catching this. Anything else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you deal with the lede summary issue I mentioned too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Ah. "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators." Just to be clear, your concern here is not tone, but you think this sentence should be expanded? I am mildly concerned about making the lead too long. Any suggestions which facts/aspects to put in the lead for the requested expansion would be appreciated too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, I wouldn't worry about length at this stage. WP:LEAD states that "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is already a good first paragraph and the coverage of the post-war period seems reasonable to me, but I think it is important that the lead does indeed engage with the long and difficult relations sections. It also might be worth re-working the current second/third paragraphs to present a better picture of the AK's actual activities - my understanding is that the "weapons" and "membership" sections point towards the complexity of the AK's organisation which is not really addressed at this stage. Do you have any thoughts, Buidhe? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

For reference, Tenryuu has kindly begun a Guild copy-edit.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through my first pass and started a discussion on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've finished my copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read up through the "Assassinations of Nazi leaders" section of this long article, doing some copyediting along the way.

What I have read seems to maintain a "neutral tone".

The article could, however, benefit from more copyediting for clarity and English-language style.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, Could you clarify what you are asking for here: [43]. Are you asking for a reference, or do you think the language used is not neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The issue is the one I raised above about it being a poor summary of the content in the lengthy "relations with" sections. It does edge on POV, but I added the tag as a visual reminder. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

As this GAR appears to still be live, I'd like to offer the following comments to help with improving the article and ensuring that it meets the GA criteria:

• The second para of the lead discusses the Home Army's successes, but not its failures. Many historians regard the decision to fight semi-conventional battles with the Germans as being a mistake, with the Warsaw Uprising being a disaster (this is a common mistake guerrilla forces make globally, with the French Resistance making similar mistakes in 1944)
• Ditto the 'Major operations' sub-section
• The first and last sentences in the first para of the 'women' section are contradictory: "a number of women operatives" suggests that there were only a few, but it's then stated that women made up a big chunk of the force
• "After the end of the uprising, over 2,000 women soldiers were taken captive (and about 5,000 perished)" - read literally, this states that the Germans killed 5000 women after the end of the uprising. Is this correct, or were 5000 women fighter killed during the uprising?
• The women section would benefit from a broader description of the role of women in the force (was it the same as men?)
• The 'structure' section would benefit from specifying the dates the organisations provided are as at
• " even described as "the only [A]llied intelligence assets on the Continent" following the French capitulation" - this seems like puffery given that the only reason for this is that the Allied Western European countries on the continent had suddenly collapsed. Intelligence networks were fairly quickly developed in the occupied countries. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Thank you for your feedback. I think you are right this article needs to address the criticism of the AK's operations in 1944. Would you happen to have any sources handy? Regarding the numbers of women, I am not sure I see a contradiction. They might have formed a majority of medical personnel (nurses), but were clearly a minority in other departments (certainly they were few in the combat department). I'd like to expand this section, but I didn't see that much more in the sources found. I'll add a clarification to the intelligence assets, but I think it is well referenced. I have no problem rewriting this further is someone finds some more relevant context in the sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • From memory, The Eagle Unbowed includes critical assessments of the AK's operations including the Warsaw Uprising. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: Do you think we need a new section titled 'assessment', or do you see a good place to add a few sentences about the pros and cons of Warsaw Uprising to the article? I note there is some relevant content at Warsaw_Uprising#After_the_war in the paragraph that begins "At present, Poland largely lacks..." and later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I'd try to integrate the material in the existing structure in the first instance, but I'm not familiar with the scope and detail in the overall literature on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Righteous Among the Nations

I don't see how this section can be considered NPOV in its approach. We have no section for List of Home Army members convicted of war crimes, for instance, which would be necessary to provide for balance if we're going to keep this section (we shouldn't). I think you could have a sentence on this in the "Relations with Jews" section, but I don't think it justifies a separate subsection because as far as I know, the strongest sources on Home Army–Jewish relations don't place a lot of weight on this specific award comparable to what it is given in this article. For example, I checked two reviews[44][45] of Zimmerman's book, which are of comparable length to the section about Jews, but don't mention this issue. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

For start, this section was just too short, so I merged it into the preceeding one. This should address the undue visibility. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced text about buying of weapons

I have removed the following text:

Purchases were made by individual units and sometimes by individual soldiers. As Germany's prospects for victory diminished and the morale in German units dropped, the number of soldiers willing to sell their weapons correspondingly increased and thus made this source more important. All such purchases were highly risky, as the Gestapo was well aware of this black market in arms and tried to check it by setting up sting operations. For the most part, this trade was limited to personal weapons, but occasionally light and heavy machine guns could also be purchased. It was much easier to trade with Italian and Hungarian units stationed in Poland, which more willingly sold their arms to the Polish underground as long as they could conceal this trade from the Germans.

Frankly, it is just not very important (and I cannot find any source for it, even through it is likely correct). There is a referenced sentence that partisans bought some weapons from the Germans, and this excessive detail is pretty much trivial - it is obvious and doesn't really add anything to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't history be in one place?

Ping User:Brigade Piron. This is subjective, perhaps, but I tend to prefer keeping chronological history in one section. Now you've split it into three (origins, wartime, postwar), each separated by some non-history sections (currently: origins, membership, structure, wartime activities, weapons and equipment, relations with other factions, postwar). I don't see how this layout is more helpful to the reader compared to one that keeps all of the chronological histories in one section (with subsections for each period). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this should probably be addressed within the GAR if you object but I do think it is unhelpful to distinguish between "history" and "non-history" content since all forms part of what is essentially a historical article. Your proposed connection between "origins" and "wartime activities", for example, could also be said to exist between "wartime activities" and "weapons and equipment". I am not saying that my proposed structure is necessarily perfect, but I certainly don't think it's helpful to effectively lump all the history into a self-standing introductory section and pretend the thematic sections are somehow distinct. Perhaps others have a view? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

• The Home Army sabotaged German transports bound for the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union, destroying German supplies and tying down substantial German forces. Are "destroying German supplies" and "tying down substantial German forces" part of sabotaging German transports, or are they different but equal ideas? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, They are a consequence of this action (sabotage). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Estimates of the Home Army's 1944 strength range between 200,000 and 600,000, the most commonly cited number being 400,000. The latter number would [...] There are three numbers in the first sentence. Which one is "latter" referring to: 600,000 or 400,000? Alternatively, is it important for the reader to understand in the lede that 400,000 is the most common number? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, I think the latter refers to 400k. And since it is an average maybe you are right and this is not necessary to clarify? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the fragment past the comma. I think the mention of "most cited number" is still present further down the article, but it doesn't seem necessary for those who are casually reading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• [...] communism-friendly government to Poland. To confirm, the Soviets wanted a Polish government that was okay with communism? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Aha. Or no Polish government at all (just a Polish Soviet republic, like Ukraine or Belarus). But that's going on a tangent... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Switched "to" with "in". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• [..] about 1943–44 [...] Weird sentence fragment here, but I think the intent was to say that the Peasants' Battalions merged with the Home Army sometime in 1943 or 1944? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Seems right, although the integration was not perfect. Wartime behind-the-lines conditions etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed comma, added "around". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Home Army ranks included a number of female operatives; the service was very dangerous. What's the connection between the number of women serving and service being dangerous? Something is being implied here, but I don't know what it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Hmmmm. No particular connection, membership for any gender in any insurgent organization is 'very dangerous'. Remove? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I removed it, as the non sequitur could have falsely implied ideas like Service in the Home Army was very dangerous, so there were female operatives to [be extra manpower/use specialised skills] that the source probably was not intending. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• [...] with over 2,000 female soldiers taken captive, with the latter number reported in contemporary press causing a "European sensation". Already edited. Was it the capture of 2,000 female soldiers that caused a "European sensation", or was the capture reported in publications that caused a "European sensation" themselves? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Official translation of the source states: ". After the fiasco of the Warsaw Uprising over 2 thousand women were taken captive by Germans, which was a European sensation, and the death toll among AK female soldiers is estimated as 5 thousand victims". Sadly, no inline citation for this was provided and I failed at investigating this further (as in, I couldn't find any other reliable source discussing this 'sensation'). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Reworked sentence to clear up ambiguity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000. Emphasis and links removed. 50,000 what? Issues? Copies? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Copies. Fixed in text. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Rowecki was willing to provide Jewish fighters with aid and resources when it contributed to "the greater war effort", but had (apparently) concluded that providing large quantities of supplies to the Jewish resistance would be futile. Is apparently necessary in parentheses? Maybe it's a source issue? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Nah, I'd remove it. Does not seem necessary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed parenthetical thought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not only had the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, following the German invasion that began 1 September 1939, but even after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 the latter [...]

  Emphasis added. Is latter referring to the Soviets? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Did some sentence tweaking to give it more pauses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a Ukrainian nationalist force and the military arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which some historians consider fascist, and which was fighting the Germans, Soviets and Poles—all of whom they saw as occupiers of the future ethnically-pure Ukrainian state—to direct most of its attacks against Poles and Jews.

  Asides in parentheses removed for readability. This is one incredibly long run-on sentence with no discernable verb. Is the main point of this sentence supposed to be "The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army directed most of its attacks against Poles and Jews"? There is a lot of information being packed into this sentence, and it might be better to either remove it or put it in a footnote as it starts deviating from the Home Army. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, No objections to shortening it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Although the information is tangential, it could potentially reside in a footnote to establish some context. I'll leave the two sources here if you want to reuse them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• On 20 July that year the Home Army command decided to establish partisan units in Volhynia. Nine formations were created, numbering about a thousand soldiers. A thousand soldiers each or in total? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, I think total but I couldn't verify this in sources. It can probably be removed as minute detail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Notably, in January 1944 the 27th Home Army Infantry Division was formed in Volhynia. This sentence feels orphaned and should be joined with either the sentence before it or the one after it. It seems like the following sentence talks about the division further? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Right, I shortened that section per my previous comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• On 7 May 1945 NIE ("NO") [...] What does "NO" mean in the parentheses? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, NIE means NO in English. I removed this as unnecessary trivia/detail for this article. Thank you for your c/e. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• English variant: the article changed between British English and American English at different points, and there's no template at the top asking editors to use one or the other. I've gone ahead and changed it to British English (e.g., organization → organisation), as it is closer geographically, but would the primary editors prefer the American variant? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Using AK as an abbreviation: Is there any particular reason why "AK" is used in some places, and "Home Army" in others? I would suggest either using AK more frequently to refer to the Home Army or not at all. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Both are common synonyms, and I think it is ok to use both? Isn't this in fact recommended for writing good prose (i.e to use synonyms)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus I may be a little biased here as I spent more time checking the sections before where it becomes prevalent such that I forgot what it stood for.
Suggestion: I'm not sure if FA reviewers will like it, but what about using the {{abbr}} template to remind readers what it is short for? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Interesting, I haven't seen this template. I think it is probably a good idea to use it, could you implement it? Maybe in one section first, or maybe you could link a similar article where it is used? What is the practice in articles like IRA or USMC (assuming any are actually at GA+ level)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Piotrus, I've added {{abbr}} to the first mention of AK after the lede. The tooltip might need to be reworked, but I think it suits its purpose for reminding readers that Home Army is also referred to by its Polish acronym (which uses different letters). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )

• Women were most numerous in the communication branch [...] Did most women work in communications or was the communications branch mostly made up of women? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Tenryuu, Hmmm. The source states " Najbardziej czynnie kobiety działały w łączności, gdzie obejmowały także funkcje kierownicze" which translates as "Most actively women were active in communication, where they also held managerial functions" (machine translation, not pretty but correct, I'd rephrase it to "Women were most active in the communication department, where many held leadership roles"). Anyway, the original sentence is ambiguous and the source doesn't answer your question, so not sure what we can do here? PS. The article is in fact dual language, but I think the official translation of the Polish sentence is not correct: "The most active women served in communication services holding even the top posts." Anyway, that's the source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. Piotrus, I've tweaked the beginning of the sentence and added "leadership roles" to the sentence. I'm assuming that the source still says that many women also worked as couriers? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Yes, it does. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Itzhak Rosenberg —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I would not have known otherwise. Cheers for the good work!--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Piotrus, are you able to address these concerns? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, Working on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks for answering my questions. There's still a few where I'd appreciate some input, but that's a lot of progress made. I've preserved the two references that I removed from the article should you want to still use them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Thank you for the very professional c/e.Courtesy ping to User:Buidhe, also maybe you have an idea where to move those references since they include quotes for some interesting factoids. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Much appreciated. That's all my questions addressed and I did some last-minute tweaks. Other than that it seems like my work here is done. Any last-minute things you want to go over? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, About the AK abbreviation, I see. Useful bit of code. I think it should be enough to use it once, right? Just like with hyperlinks? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, yeah, once is enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I think that's everything on my end. Best of luck heading forward! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick question - what's the neutrality concern with the lede sentence "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators"? I'm not seeing that discussed anywhere. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought this fairly obvious. This phrase us the sole summary offered in the lead for the lengthy, rather more nuanced, section on "Relations with ethnic groups". As such, it needs expansion to make it neutral. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

With regard to these two particular ethnic groups it looks like an accurate summary to me. Volunteer Marek 04:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

References