Jump to content

Talk:Home Army/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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[1], 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:
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...[2] 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: [3]. 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

After the Fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the reputation of the Home Army among the populace was restored, while their attitudes toward Jews remain controversial.

I don't understand why this is a single sentence: the reputation restoration apparently happened by 1999 (see the end of the article), so it's complete, while if their attitudes toward Jews remain controversial, the question has continued more than 20 years after their reputation was restored. Please split this into separate sentences. 64.203.186.76 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RFZYNSPY talk 01:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 Note: Can you please provide what the sentence would look like separated into multiple sentences? I'm not understanding where they need to split up. RFZYNSPY talk 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
That sentence was indeed pretty klutzy for a number of reasons. Aside from combining at least two independent clauses it’s not exactly clear what “reputation among populace” is suppose to mean (reputation among populace was probably fine even under communism - it was the portrayal in official propaganda that was the problem). Volunteer Marek 06:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
FR, "not done" does not mean "denied".
RFZYNSPY, what does "reputation among the populace was restored" actually mean? It's a meaningless horribly written piece of text which is NOT actually supported by any source. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent removal

@Volunteer Marek: You removed a sourced[4] and quoted[5] statement from the lead as unclear or ungrammatical, and replaced it with an unsourced one. I don't believe grammar is reason enough to remove a well-sourced statement from anywhere. Part of our role as wikipedians is to take good sources and make them accessible to the public; we have good sources, so make them accessible.

Also, reverting someone who reverted you in a TA that's subject to multiple ArbCom decisions (WP:ARBEE, WP:APL) is not good practice. François Robere (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ummmmm, no, Francois Robere. You reverted me [6] without bothering to even comment on talk (the relevant section is right above). THAT is "not good practice". So perhaps you can take your own advice and apply it to yourself? Or is this one of these "rules apply to you but not to me" things?
I explained my reasons several times. The lede doesn't need sources, and whether a statement is sourced or not is irrelevant if it is borderline incoherent. Volunteer Marek 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the text was added very recently (August 4th) so obviously the WP:ONUS to get consensus is on you - which is what you should've been doing rather than trying to start an edit war. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I assume you're familiar with WP:BRD, Marek? You made an edit, I reverted it, now it's your turn to take it to talk. In fact, you're explicitly discouraged from "[re-reverting] to your version".
I explained my reasons several times Where? I only saw your edit summaries - " Per edit request - the sentence is indeed extremely awkward and a non sequitur" and "The sentence doesn't make grammatical or logical sense, source or no" - which I found somewhat illogical and ungrammatical in their own right, so please explain what's exactly the problem.
The lede doesn't need sources Per MOS:LEADCITE, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged... should be supported by an inline citation". That material has already been challenged,[7] so you should've supplied a source before restoring it.
the text was added very recently (August 4th) so obviously the WP:ONUS to get consensus is on you Ah... no. The first half of that statement was there as early as January, along with the two sources.[8] The second half was added by Davide King a month ago,[9] AFAIK without objections. You don't get to call WP:ONUS when the content has already been there for weeks and months. François Robere (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Where? In the section right above as already referenced several times. It helps if you read the talk before reverting.
The challenge here is removing it, which is my view, so I don’t understand why you think I should provide a citation for text I don’t think belongs in the article. How does that even make sense?
”As early as January” isn’t that “early either” and that is actually NOT the part you’re disputing so why are you acting like it is? And yes, WP:ONUS is on those who wish to restore text that’s been challenged.
Just stop trying to start pointless edit wars man. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It helps if you read the talk before reverting. I have indeed, and I found it lacking. You (again) gave no policy-based reason for favoring deletion instead of a simple copyedit (eg. adding "local" before "populace", which would immediately make it clear).
I don’t understand why you think I should provide a citation What did you replace the removed statement with?[10]
”As early as January” isn’t that “early either” and that is actually NOT the part you’re disputing so why are you acting like it is? I'm disputing your removal of the entire statement, Marek. Where did you see me state otherwise? Also, January is early enough that we're past WP:ONUS; now you're making a change after consensus has already been established, so it's on you to justify it. BTW, the references you removed go back at least to December 2019.[11][12] François Robere (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
No, adding "local" before "populace" would not have clarified anything. If anything it would have made it more confusing. And as you yourself note I did not remove the entire statement - I cleaned it up. And are you seriously gonna try to Wikilawyer whether "January" is early enough or not? This is just the ever constant shifting of goalposts ("it's early if I say it is"). Volunteer Marek 14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
And as you yourself note I did not remove the entire statement Did I? Where?
are you seriously gonna try to Wikilawyer whether "January" is early enough or not? Are you seriously going to claim WP:ONUS for something that's been in the article, undisputed, for more than a few days?
adding "local" before "populace" would not have clarified anything. If anything it would have made it more confusing. Then you're welcome to be creative, do a little diffing, find what the sources say, and suggest an edit that clarifies the statement instead of removing it. What do you say? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you seriously going to claim WP:ONUS for something that's been in the article, undisputed, for more than a few days? Well, um, yes. Obviously. Look it does NOT work like this: put it in an article, hope no one notices for a few days, claim it's enshrined in gold in the article forever. It works the other way. In fact, just in general ONUS is on those who wish to include and most certainly for text that's just been added. Seriously, "undisputed for days"? What does that even suppose to prove? It's like "uninterrupted for minutes". Anyway, apparently there has been text in Wikipedia articles that stayed "uundisputed" for years, yet, it should've been removed.
I did clarify the statement. Just not to your liking I guess. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read WP:CONSENSUS, in particular WP:EDITCON: "an edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement." Those edits had presumed consensus, yours don't.
I did clarify the statement No, you changed its meaning. Would you like to suggest a different phrasing that clarifies the statement without changing its meaning? François Robere (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, I suggest you re-read your own statement, the part where it says "unless it is disputed or reverted". Which it was. "These" edits did not have presumed consensus just because they managed to stay in the article for a couple days.
And yes I guess I changed the "meaning" - from "reputation among populace" which didn't make much sense. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. You already know that half the material was there for 3 weeks and the other for 0.5-1.5 years, so saying it was there "for a couple days" is disingenuous.
  2. You replaced the phrase "its reputation was restored" with the completely different "it was no longer subject to government propaganda", without sourcing, and you won't even hold up to that.
This is becoming disruptive. You do not have consensus, so unless you're willing to propose an alternative I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and walk away. François Robere (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
for 0.5-1.5 years Lol. Why not get really serious and go for “for 0.5-1000 years”? It’s been there since January. And it was ungrammatical, unsourced, and badly written.
Yes I replaced “it’s reputation was restored”. Was that sourced? No? Then what exactly are you complaining about? Was it hard to understand and badly written? Yes? Then what exactly are you complaining about? Was it untrue? Yeah, since it’s “reputation among the populace”, to the extent that actually means something, was just fine all along, it was it’s portrayal in communist propaganda that changed. Again, what exactly is your problem with this change? It’s a clear improvement.
And you know what’s really disruptive (rather than “I’m gonna pretend this is disruptive so that I can cast WP:ASPERSIONS at you”)? Trying to make a big deal out of someone fixing a badly written statement just to pick a pointless fight. And, no, YOU, don’t have consensus. And I *did* “propose an alternative” which you implicitly acknowledge by complaining about my edit. Sorry FR, but YOU are the one who keeps beating this dead horse. So yeah, drop the stick. And telling someone to “walk away”, as if you just gotten into some fisticuffs is rude, WP:UNCIVIL and indicative of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that you bring to this topic area. Don’t tell other editors to “walk away”. What is this, a pub parking lot? Seriously, don’t talk like that to others. It’s offensive. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Surely, if the issue is grammatical, the solution is to copy edit it, especially if sourced, not remove it outright. I added that to the lead as a summary of Relations with ethnic groups (Jews) because it was due, as determined by the weight it was given in the body, and the removal itself was a violation of NPOV and due weight. Here, they wrote "this is technically correct but it misses the point of Armstrong’s article (the title has 'reassessment' in it for a reason) With proper wording this could be included along with the 'no detailed examinations' part, though overall article is pretty old e)." Why not just doing that rather than remove it? In short, "The sentence doesn't make grammatical or logical sense, source or no" makes no sense in itself, the edit request was itself unclear (so much for the added phrase making no sense or being unclear), and is not a valid reason to remove it outright, and does not reference any of our policies and guidelines. Finally, it does not need to be just challenged, there needs to be a valid reason, better if backed by our policy and guidelines, for it to be challenged; this does not look to be the case (the first challenge in the edit request was actually rejected as unclear and this second challenge should be similarly rejected as a NPOV violation and as a lack of pragmatism, i.e. copy editing, clarifying the Armstrong 1994 source, not simply remove it outright as "extremely awkward and a non sequitur" [sic!], which may not be an actual policy but it may show a lack of good faith), it is more like "I just don't like it."
Davide King (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the Armstrong article, that whole article is about something else - it debunks the myth that there was an order issued by Bor-Komorowski regarding “Jewish bands” (sic) and it takes some other historians to task for spreading that myth. This means that the quote that was pullout of this article is just a cherry picked aside and not representative of the actual source.
And I don’t know, but not having a sentence that barely makes sense and is a mish mash of several awkwardly phrased and hard to understand yet distinct ideas seems like a pretty valid reason for removal.
I’m not sure what the objection to me calling it a non-sequitur is. That’s exactly what it was. Volunteer Marek 21:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As you can see here, that statement is simply in further support and verification of "Both 'profoundly disturbing acts of violence as well as extraordinary acts of aid and compassion' have been reported, though the majority of Holocaust survivors in an analysis by Joshua D. Zimmerman reported negative interactions with the Home Army." Either way, there is Blutinger 2015 which says "... the Home Army had a difficult and complicated relationship with Jews and Jewish underground organizations." Clearly, their "difficult and complicated relationship" with Jews is lead worthy, so you even disagree with this? If you have a wording that is of your satisfaction, please provide it. My main concern was the removal of source content on unrelated grounds that could be fixed with copy editing rather than removal. Davide King (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion is going nowhere and a majority of editors (which is to say - Davide King and myself) presented policy-based rationales for inclusion (see WP:DETCON), I've restored Davide's addition[13] and tagged Volunteer Marek's challenged statement.[14] François Robere (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Article may be a bit unfair or misleading / contradictory

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Change Joanna Drzewieniecki to Jarosław Piekałkiewicz (text and footnote 86). Joanna edited the book but is not listed as a co-author. See amazon.com or Hamilton Books. JDPeruPhDBuffalo (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army/Archive_7&oldid=1220982667"