Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blue Army (Poland)

Resolved:

For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

Blue Army (Poland)

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. COD T 3 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Faustian (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [1]

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Overview: The primary issue regarding the Blue Army article is that of neutrality. This ongoing dispute, has been sent to the Dispute resolution noticeboard on two separate occasions within the last month (last one closing on 2 April, 2013), without reaching a consensus; due to varying interpretation of undue-weight, section length, POV, and language. Subsequently, the DR noticeboard mediator User:Keithbob suggested that the dispute be escalated to a formal mediation board. Below is a list of disputed items found in the Controversies, and Introduction sections.

1. The overall tone on the Controversies section contains language that exhibits POV, puffery, judgment, opinion, unfairly demonizes the subject matter, and contains redundant statements, without regard for the overall context, or actual scale of the events in question.

• Example of redundancy, and opinion: "Although Poles hold the Blue Army in high regard for its successful effort in stopping the Bolshevik advance into Central Europe and securing Poland's unstable eastern border, many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light." In the very next paragraph we find a similar redundant, opinion based statement, "As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests."

2. Use of questionable historical references; that potentially do not directly relate to the subject matter, are significantly exaggerated, or taken out of context.

• Example 1: The statement "pushed local Jews off moving trains". After reviewing the source of the statement in the book that was used as reference; it is clear that the phrase was taken from page 1035, but when you look closer at footnote no. 20 on page 1035, we find that the basis for the statement was an article from the Robotnik newspaper, dated June 8, 1919, and the newspaper quote in the footnote actually stated that Jews were forcibly removed from the train at Łuków train station; NOT thrown off moving trains. Also, the use of plural "trains" creates an impression that the BA committed such acts on a regular basis.
• Example 2: The statement "In cases when Polish sources couldn't deny the existence of anti-Jewish violence, the authorities alluded that Jews charged too much for food during food shortages, or claimed that the violence was a result of "food riots" rather than pogroms, and blamed "German agents" for inciting the violence." Does this statement (that was taken from a book) actually refer to the BA? Because, the use of the term "food riots" and "charged too much for food" is highly suspect. The terms would more commonly be used when referring to civilian lawlessness, and not the army's lack of discipline.
• Example 3: The statement "the latter act was referred to by Haller's soldiers as "civilizing" the Jews.". The source does not say that Haller's troops actually called the acts "civilizing". Only, the author of the book uses the term to describe the events. But, such a description is an example of puffery, and bias; lacking the encyclopedic objectivity required in a WP article.

3. Undue weight; by including a paragraph in the Introduction section that highlights a relatively small amount of civilian abuse cases committed against local Jewish populations (that were perpetrated by a minority of troops, and officially condemned by the leadership), has now been elevated to a major issue, which potentially creates an impression that such actions were a significant hallmark of the army. While in fact, was done by individual soldiers or groups of undisciplined troops; not significant elements of the army. Listed below are sources that actually provide a legitimate description of the actual scale of the events in question.

• In Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War on page 25 we can find this statement: "their ordeal [Jewish casualties caused by BA] could not be equated with the raw genocide committed by Petliura's and Denikin's armies in the eastern "integral" Ukraine".
• In Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43, historian Norman Davies is quoted, that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, questioned whether the term "pogrom" was properly applied to the events in question (when an even larger amount of Ukrainian civilians were killed then Jews), and a figure of about 400-500 actual casualties is provided; in contrast to the 25,000 to 50,000 jewish casualties caused by the Ukrainian army commanded by Symon Petliura, during the same time.

In conclusion, the Controversies and Introductory sections clearly display a lack of objectivity (beyond the few examples provided above), and include descriptions of the events that are inaccurate, and backed-up by poorly selected sources. Finally, there is a blurring of details and facts; for example where a book may list acts of violence committed by the Polish military, and then the generalization is applied to the BA. There needs to be a clear understanding that in this article we are talking about the BA specifically. This bias and exaggerated tone is being used to describe the Blue Army, it lacks objectivity, is inherently hostile to the subject, uses weasel words, and unfair generalizations.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• The account above is, sorry, rather one-sided and most claims made the other person are simply false. I'm not sure whether to write rebuttals of every point he makes here, or in the text above. But the bottom line is that the user who brought this to mediation wants to deal with what he considers to be undue weight not by adding more to other aspects of the article but to remove information, all of which is referenced to reliable sources (peer-reviewed books published by universities, etc.), form a section he doesn't like because it says bad things about the Blue Army. I see, above, that he has attempted to second-guess the secondary sources by tracing what they wrote to the original source and claiming that the secondary source was wrong in some way. This sort of thing would seem to be an example of original research; if he can find a reliable source that shows that a source is wrong he may use that, but Wikipedia isn't the place to that himself. One example here:

User:COD T 3 writes: The statement "pushed local Jews off moving trains". After reviewing the source of the text, we find that the statement taken from a book that was based on one article from the Robotnik newspaper, dated June 8, 1919 (a poor reference source), and the newspaper actually stated that Jews were forcibly removed from the train at Łuków train station; NOT thrown off a moving train. Also, the use of plural "trains" creates an impression that the BA committed such acts on a regular basis.

This statement was taken from source Pavel Korzec. (1993). Polish-Jewish Relations During World War I. In Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert Strauss, Ed. Walter de Gruyter: pp.1034-1035. The exact text reads: "Very often Jews were pushed off the moving trains." Very often, and trains plural. The Wikipedia article reflects what the source states. Nothing inaccurate. This piece of information was not taken from the Robotnik article - that is entirely User:COD T 3's interpretation. It's a similar story for each point made above by User:COD T 3.

As for the claim that this violence was not important or isolated events - reliable sources state otherwise. Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 103. "Two Polish units - Poznań regiments and General Jozef Haller's Army - especially earned the reputation as notorious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski." Pavel Korzec. (1993). Polish-Jewish Relations During World War I. In Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert Strauss, Ed. Walter de Gruyter: pp.1034-1035 "In the martyrology of the Jews during the years 1918-1920, the 'Haller's Boys' (Hallerczycy) won sad repute as the worst torturers of the Jews.'"

I would welcome having "other eyes" take a look at these issues. I have a few more bits of information to add to the controversy section and would like to move forward with that, once this issue has been put to rest. But the bottom line is that the best way to build the article is to add more info into other sections, not remove information. The controversy section is only 26 lines long, and the mention of anti-Semitic violence in the lede, described by User:COD T 3 as a "paragraph", is actually only one sentence long. Faustian (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. COD T 3 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree. Let's have other people look at this. A note: I will be on vacation for a week, starting April 12th.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Accept. A mediator will be assigned and, unless the mediator deems otherwise, the mediation will take place on the RfM talk page. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay, however mediation will taking place on the talk page, and I'll be mediating. PhilKnight (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2014 (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.