Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Blue Army (Poland)

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.

---

The mediation for the case will take place on this page.

Editors involved in this dispute

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

Articles affected by this dispute

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

Beginning mediation

Before we start the discussion, could I ask the editors involved in this mediation to agree to the following:

• not to edit the article during the mediation
• to remain civil and constructive in your discussions
• and to make an opening statement that succinctly explains your position.

Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree to this. My opening statement depends on that of COD T 3, but in general this issue seems to focus on information. My general approach: the more information the better, provided it comes from reliable sources and accurately reflects those sources, without original research. Information meeting this standard ought not be removed or hidden. If the amount of information seems excessive (i.e., one section of the article is too long compared to others) then the way to fix this is to flesh out other parts of the article rather than to remove reliably sourced information. Of course the approach I support ought to be done within reason: pages worth of info may indeed be excessive. Looking at this article, the contentious section is the one involving the Blue Army's antisemitic violence: [1]. This section involves 26 lines of written text, which does not seem like an excessive amount. Indeed, I would like to add another 2 lines or so of additional information I have found - referenced to a reliable source. If this section is too long compared to other sections, I suggest that other sections ought to be expanded rather than this one having reliably sourced information removed from it. Indeed, this was the recommendation of at least one other editor of this article: [2] "One could argue that the controversy section is too large relative to the article as a whole but that's more of an issue of expanding the rest of the article." Faustian (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, agree… In my opening statement I'd like to quickly address some of the points that are up for discussion. I think the most concerning issue with the article is its general tone, that unfairly disparages the Blue Army (BA), and contains a bias POV; examples include statements that potentially carry un-due weight, are opinion based, redundant, and most importantly inaccurate. A detailed description of the Primary Issues can be found on the original request for mediation page. [3] In summary, the disputed material is significantly skewed to one side, with the most extreme examples presented, and worded in such a way as to cast collective blame over the entire army. In this case no one is disputing that incidents of violence agains the local Jewish population occurred, and some clearly can be described as anti-semitic. But, when an entire section is centered around this one issue that dwarfs all other content on the page, a false impression is created that "pogroming" is the only significant event the the BA is remembered for. While in reality, such acts occurred as a result of actions by individual soldiers, or irregular groups of undisciplined troops, not the army as a whole. Also, incidents of violence directed against local Jewish population were minimal with with only about 400-500 casualties caused by the actions of the BA's troops This stands in comparison to Gen. Petliura's Ukrainian army, who's Jewish casualty count is estimated at 25,000-50,000 victims. (Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43). Also, these numbers are significantly lower that those of Polish, or Ukrainian victims that died during the conflict, as a result of violence perpetrated against them. Yet, the Controversies section is overloaded with this one issue; if we were to balance out the content (as suggested by Faustian), and add an equal amount of information about Ukrainian casualties as an example, the section would become even larger, and through sheer size give an impression that the BA is only remembered for abusing civilians, again a completely unfair description of the army. The statement quoted by user Faustian that "Hallerczycy won sad repute as the worst torturers of the Jews". is a gross overstatement; "worst tortures" is a opinionated statement that lack a clear criteria. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

400-500 people killed is not "minimal." I will add that all statements are reliably sourced and reflect what the sources said. They are not embellished and indeed tend to take a softer tone than the original sources say. Furthermore, 26 lines of text in a lengthy article does not dominate the article. And, as I stated, the solution ought to be, to further flesh out other sections rather than to remove info. The BA does have a reputation as pogromists. Here is what reliable sources conclude: 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.'" This was a very important aspect of this army and how it was seen. Faustian (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully object to the practice of writing out of turn. We were asked to write an opening statement for the benefit of the mediator, not start arguing, trying to get the last word, or flood the discussion with so much "chatter" that it becomes difficult to sort out the major points. Perhaps a better approach would have been to add additional details to your original opening statement, and not overtake the text that I wrote and in the process sideline my opening thoughts on the issue. --COD T 3 (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would be preferable not to have a lengthy debate at this stage. Thanks for your opening statements. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the best way to proceed is probably to work through the 'Controversies' section, to discuss the content, and from there, we can hopefully agree a compromise version. I appreciate the start of the 'Controversies' section was discussed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard with Keithbob, however I suggest that we start at the beginning of this section, and discuss it line by line. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...it should be noted that the current article is already a compromise version that was achieved through the collaborative efforts of me and others.Faustian (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, however, my role as mediator is to facilitate some form of agreed wording for this article. While not all mediation cases result in a compromise, in all honesty, most successful outcomes involve some degree of compromise on both sides. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of the 'Controversies' section

So, the first sentence of the 'Controversies' section is as follows:

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.

COD T 3, I gather that you are opposed to this sentence. Do you think a different opening sentence could be used as an introduction to this section? PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do oppose this text. It is an opinion based statement, and thus it inherently contains a potential POV, it also contains Weasel words (in this case the word "generally"), making the whole statement questionable. This is not Encyclopaedia Judaica, and the BA should not be viewed primarily through the Jewish experience, or any other for that matter, it should be left to the reader to determine where the BA stands; because as with any historical subject matter there is a gray area. The Blue Army fought in World War I on the Western Front, secured Poland's border in the Polish–Ukrainian War, and defeated the Bolsheviks in the Polish–Soviet War. it was made up of 68,500 Polish volunteers form places as diverse as the United States, Brazil, and Siberia. The BA had Jewish officers, and medical staff. Also, the BA fought against the army of the West Ukrainian People's Republic, but fought the Bolsheviks with the forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic. So, Ukrainian views on the BA differed greatly during that time. Yes, there were incidents of civilian abuse (as in any war), and some of it can be categorized as anti-semitic. But, despite all this complexity user Faustian only wants to remember the BA as going around "pogroming" Jews, and present the BA in the same light as the Waffen-SS.

Please note the below sources that do confirm a verity of thoughts on the matter, and actually warn agains "generalizing" issues regarding Jewish consensus.

• (Memories of a Narrow Place; page 69-70) "While the Poles were just as anti-semitic as the Russians, the Army wasn't quite that way. And of course, it was an improvement over the Ukrainians who's sole purpose in life was to get rid of the Jews." This narrative written by historian Charles Shneer, based on eye-witness recollections, shows that there were varying degrees of thought on the issue.

• (My Brother's Keeper: Recent Polish Debates on the Holocaust; chapter 8) "But as soon as we have said this, we must remember that Jews during the last hundred years were not a homogenous group; their views were far from uniform." A statement made by Stanisław Krajewski (a polish-jewish scholar and writer) warning against just such generalizations about the events during this time period, using the BA as example.

In conclusion, I would like to recommend that the whole statement is removed, from the section. The article is about the BA. The text should not go off on a tangent, and discuss opinions. --COD T 3 (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The first work is not even a reliable source. It isn't published by a peer-reviewed journal and it is just a personal memoir. As for the seond quote - lack of uniformity does not mean that one can never generalize or summarize. Reliable sources state that many Jews and Ukrainians see it in a negative light. This is a fact. The wording is actually an understatement if anything. Actually sources stated: "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.'" So the wording already reflects deference to the "Polish side" and compromise. Also Haller's army is the Blue Army - the implication that it is not is inaccurate. So we have two reliable sources stating that the Blue Army is viewed negatively. I would also like to add newspaper reports showing Jewish community protests against Haller, due to the Blue Army's behavior.

As I compromise, I would be willing to agree to add that opinions were not uniform, but in general the army was viewed negatively. Faustian (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Would rephrasing the sentence so that it was about factually what happened, as opposed to opinions that were held, be an acceptable compromise? Something along the lines of:

After the Blue Army fought in World War I on the Western Front, it secured Poland's border in the Polish–Ukrainian War, and defeated the Bolsheviks in the Polish–Soviet War. During the fighting on the Ukrainian front, elements of the Blue Army were involved in antisemitic violence.

PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is notable that the BA has a bad reputation - there are sources for this. I think it can be added, that such feelings are not universal. But they notably exist. I also wanted to add info about protests (this is not yet in the article and I am holding back from editing it) so mentioning the bad reputation would fit with that other info.02:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that user Faustian's proposition to include information about the "protests" (originally based on newspaper accounts) was already rejected by a mediator during an earlier dispute resolution case [4]. Also, regarding the issue of the army's "reputation", and Jewish opinions about it. I would like to highlight the fact that as noted by historian Norman Davies, Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the conflict (Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43). So, an overemphasis on the Jewish perspective creates issues of undo-weight within the article. In fact, when talking about casualties or victims; Germany, Ukraine, and Bolshevik Russia have far more significance than the Jewish element. Finally, I would again recommend the removal of the entire first paragraph that is centered around "opinions", and replace the opening sentence of the second paragraph with the mediator's proposed approach and include the below statement:

"During fighting in eastern Galicia, elements of the Blue Army were involved in antisemitic violence directed against segments of the local Jewish population; who was perceived to support, or openly supported enemy causes."

--COD T 3 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the use of the newspaper article was certainly not rejected: [5]. Please be accurate in your claims.Faustian (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, the mediator did differentiate between modern and historic newspaper references. In any case, this topic is a bit of a "red herring" that is moving away from the original discussion. --COD T 3 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. An issue is, should the perception of the BA by the communities it came into contact with be included in the article about the BA? I think it should, provided it is based on reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Faustian, you are only providing more examples of opinion, not articulating why the subject of "Jewish opinion and the BA" should receive so much prominence within the article; a perspective that in effect outweighs all other content.

• Were the Jews a primary objective of the Blue Army: NO
• Did the Jewish victim or casualties outnumber those of Poles, Ukrainians, Bolsheviks, or Germans: NO
• Were these attacks officially ordered or condoned by Gen. Haller the commander of the army: NO

So, the article contains serious issues of un-due weight, POV, and neutrality, by overemphasizing an ethnocentric point of view focusing on Jewish matters (even Faustian's sources mention the BA only in passing statements). In any case, at this point we should allow for more feed back from the mediator on the issue. --COD T 3 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a sentence of describing opinion and one more sentence describing protests are not "so much prominence within the article; a perspective that in effect outweighs all other content." Actually these can even be combined into one sentence. I will gladly compromise on that. This stuff shouldn't be overemphasized, but it shouldn't be censored either. A sentence for each fact is the bare minimum. As for the your other comments, as you have admitted the BA killed 400-500 Jewish civilians. How many were injured? Probably many more. Many reliable sources write about BA's anti-Semitic violence. Faustian (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Faustian, could I ask you to suggest a sentence that describes opinion and the protests? PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Although opinion was not universal, Jews generally viewed the Blue Army's conduct during the war in a negative light (see sources above for ref.) and its leader's visit to the United States was met by protests from the Jewish and Ukrainian communities." [6] [7][8].Faustian (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose a compromise text that includes the opinion narrative submitted by user Faustian, and also uses language that is more objective when describing the events in question. This is a bit of a major edit to the overall text. I would recommend that we build form that format, and allow user Faustian to perhaps add or remove some of the material. See collapsed content below:

Extended content

Controversies Although opinion was not universal, Jews generally viewed the Blue Army's conduct during the war in a negative light, and General Józef Haller's visit to the United States was met by protests from the Jewish and Ukrainian communities. During the fighting in eastern Galicia, elements of the Blue Army were involved in antisemitic violence directed against segments of the local Jewish population; who was perceived to support, or openly supported enemy causes. The initial hostility exhibited by some of the soldiers, directly stemmed from earlier events of the Greater Poland Uprising, when Poles rose up against German rule, only to discover that the Jews in the region sided with the government authorities; a decision primarily based on economic factors. Also, many of the troops viewed all Jews living in lands of the former Russian Empire as supporters of the Bolshevik revolution. In Częstochowa on 27 May, 1919 a soldier by the name of Stanislaw Dziadecki who served in one of the Blue Army's rifle divisions, was shot while on patrol in an apparent sniper attack; a local Jewish tailor, who sympathized with the Bolshevik cause was suspected of committing the attack. In an effort to apprehend the suspect, Haller's troops aided by local Polish civilians conducted a three hour assault on the town's Jewish quarter that left 5 Jews dead and 45 wounded. As the army traveled towards the front line in eastern Galicia, some of the soldiers as a way to exact retribution, harassed the local Jewish populace, most notably by cutting off beards of Orthodox Jews. Some of Haller's troops along with the Poznań regiments, committed pogroms in Sambir, and Grodek Jagiellonski where local Jews openly collaborated with the forces of the West Ukrainian People's Republic, Jewish civic committees actively recruited able-bodied men to fight in the Ukrainian Galician Army, and Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian military. In an effort to curb the excesses, General Haller himself issued a proclamation demanding that his troops stop cutting off beards of Orthodox Jews, and in due course, individual soldiers involved in confirmed acts of abuse did receive punishment for their actions. The overall scale of the violence was estimated at around 400 to 500 Jewish casualties, with many more victims injured or wounded. But, the ordeal could not be equated with the outright genocide committed agains the Jewish population during the same time period by the armies of the Ukrainian People's Republic commanded by Genral Petliura where 35,000 to 50,000 Jews were killed in eastern Ukraine. Despite examples of antisemitic behavior exhibited by some troops within the Blue Army, many Polish Jews enlisted and fought within its ranks. Some even received a commission and took up leadership positions. Jews serving in the Blue Army's 43rd Regiment of Eastern Frontier Riflemen were listed as combat fatalities, and historian Edward Goldstein has identified approximately five percent of the unit's battle casualties as having a Jewish background.

Unfortunately there are a few problems there. It seems to "blame the victims" by, every time atrocities are mentioned, bringing up alleged Jewish collaboration with Bolsheviks or Ukrainians. Unless a reliable source specifically says that because JEwish youth served as scouts, Jews were attacked, this infor is original research. Mentioning Petliura's pogroms is not relevant, because those occurred in a different location by different forces (if the length of this section is a problem, why bring in info about a completely unrelated unit, committing atrocities elsewhere?). That seems to be done, also, in the service of making the BA look "not as bad." The last section is problematic because it doesn't seem to be based on a reliable source (that is, not a peer-reviewed historical work) but a geneological-focused journal: [9] I'm not sure if the author is even a historian. He may be this guy: [10] but who knows?.

Yes, the source does say exactly just that, it is not original research (Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia page. 100).

• in areas adjacent to the front line, Jewish committees began the mobilization of able bodied males into the ZUNR armed forces - Ukrainska Halytska Armiia (UHA). In Radziechów and Sambor [Sambir], Jewish officers and civilians made up of 33 percent of the gendarmerie; Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian army.

Also, regarding jews in the BA. The source is the The Galitzianer, the quarterly journal of Gesher Galicia, and thought it is not a prime source, I don't believe that it is considered completely "unreliable". As for the comparison text, we can remove the last portion of the statement directly referring to Petliura. But, again the source does provide a general compares of the scale of the events, and that is very important. Having said that, I would welcome you edit of the above text.--COD T 3 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood - does a source state, specifically, that Jews were killed because some Jews served as scouts etc.? The specific incident in Częstochowa on 27 May did follow the incident with the Jewish tailor according to a reliable source, so this ought to be retained, but does Prusin claim that Jews working as scouts caused the BA to kill Jews? If not - it is original research (it could be that they served as scouts because they were getting killed, though unless Prusin said so I wouldn't write that in an article). I'll work on an edit in the next day or two.Faustian (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a version. I am open to wording things in a way that others like, but I am not open to censoring reliably sourced information that others do not want to see, nor to changing the meaning of what reliable sources say. I decided that it might be better for chronological reasons to separate Jewish opinion and protests because the latter occurred after the war. I started the section with explanation for the violence in general, because with the exception of the events in Czestochowa the events are not directly attributed to the reasons. Anyways:

Although opinion was not universal, Jews generally viewed the Blue Army's conduct during the war in a negative light, and as being particularly hostile to their interests.[18][19][20]. Various factors may explain the hostility towards Jews by elements of the Blue Army. Poland was beset by socioeconomic tensions between Polish peasants and Polish landlords and Jews. Polish soldiers, not supplied with sufficient food or clothing, sometimes looted Jews as compensation. Many of the soldiers and officers who targeted local Jewish, and Ukrainian civilians believed that they were acting in Poland's defense, assuming that the victims were collaborating with their enemies; either the Ukrainian Galician Army, or Bolshevik Russia.[24] Hostility was also directly linked to events in Poznan province in western Poland, [17] when in January 1919 Poles had risen up against German domination, only to find out that the Jews in the region sided with the German government against them.[17] Among the worst offenders within Haller's army were the 23,000 Polish-American volunteers, who were relatively late in joining the campaign, and thus poorly disciplined. It is likely that the cultural shock of finding themselves confronted by a multitude of unfamiliar ethnic, political, and religious groups that inhabited Western Ukraine led to a feeling of vulnerability, that in turn provoked the violent outbursts.[2] An additional factor contributing to Polish-American hostility towards Jews was a deterioration in Polish-Jewish relations in the United Stated during the war. [17].

But, many of the civilians targeted were not hostile to the Polish military in any way.[25]

After their arrival in the east, Haller's troops engaged in acts of violence against the local Jewish populations.[3] In Częstochowa on 27 May 1919, a soldier by the name of Stanislaw Dziadecki who served in one of the Blue Army's rifle divisions, was shot and wounded while on patrol, in an apparent sniper attack; a local Jewish tailor, who sympathized with the Bolshevik cause was suspected of committing the attack.[21] Later that day, Haller's troops aided by local Polish civilians conducted a three hour assault on the town's Jewish quarter that left 5 Jews dead and 45 wounded.[22] As the army traveled further east, Haller's soldiers as a way to exact retribution looted Jewish houses, pushed local Jews off moving trains, and with their bayonets cut off the beards of Orthodox Jews; the latter act was referred to by Haller's soldiers as "civilizing" the Jews.[18] They also committed acts of rape and destroyed prayer books and sacred scrolls in the synagogues. [17]

Haller's army, along with the Poznań regiments, committed pogroms in Sambir, the area around Lviv, and Grodek Jagiellonski.[17]. In Sambir, Jewish civic committees had actively recruited able-bodied men to fight in the Ukrainian Galician Army, and Jewish youth served as scouts for the Ukrainian military.[23]

In an effort to curb the abuses, General Józef Haller himself issued a proclamation demanding that his soldiers stop cutting off beards of Orthodox Jews.[26] Also, in due course the individual soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press, Polish Government officials, supported by their French allies, noted that many of the alleged antisemitic tracts attributed to the Blue Army were in fact a product of willful disinformation based purely on hearsay and confabulation emanating from Russian and German government sources in an effort to discredit the new Polish Government, and in the process weaken the much needed Allied support for the new Polish State.[3] 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.[22]

Despite examples of antisemitic behavior exhibited by some troops within the Blue Army,[18][19][27] many Polish Jews enlisted and fought within its ranks. Some even received a commission and took up leadership positions. Jews serving in the Blue Army's 43rd Regiment of Eastern Frontier Riflemen were listed as combat fatalities, and historian Edward Goldstein has identified approximately five percent of the unit's battle casualties as having a Jewish background.[27]

After the war, reflecting the general opinion of Jews towards Haller's army, Haller's visit to the United States was met by protests from the Jewish and Ukrainian communities.

Note: I added referenced info about synagogue vandalism and rapes from Prusin's book. This shouldn't be censored.Faustian (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate the added statements about the reasons that caused the violent outbursts. But, unfortunately by adding even more details of abuse you are only exacerbating the issues of un-due weight and POV. These issues are being ignored in your editing approach, and yet those rules are an integral part of Wikipedia guidelines. As I noted earlier, the Jews were not the primary victims of the BA, and their casualty count was much lower than that of Poles of Ukrainians. This is not an issue of "sourced" material, it an issue of balance and neutrality. In every war there is looting, rape, and abuse... this happened to the Ukrainians and Poles, yet you are only trying to make the Controversies section about the Jewish experience, addressing only those things as if they only happened to Jews, and yes… I am trying to restore balance to this page. As I noted earlier this is not Encyclopedia Judaica we are not trying to illustrate the BA throughout the Jewish perspective. So, due to a lack a compromise after two dispute resolution boards and this mediation effort, I would like to go ahead and add the following tags on the page.

• This tag for the article and intro section:

• and the contrivers section:

--COD T 3 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the undue weight tag at the beginning of the article, although I disagree that there is undue weight because this section is placed at the end of the article and doens't dominate the article's length. The way to deal with undue weight would be to add more to other sections of the article, not to remove referenced information. Perhaps you can do research in its military exploits, the battles it was in, etc, and add them to the article in order to remove what you perceive as undue weight. The nuetrality tags, on the other hand, seem inapproprirate because the information is not presented in a POV-pushing way, is reliably sourced, and does include the Polish sides' claims (it is not one-sided). Also, perhaps I have forgotten, but do you have info about Haller's Blue Army specifically committing atrocities against Ukrainians?Faustian (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Faustian for posting his preferred version of the controversies section. Obviously, it's unfortunate that this attempt at mediation seems to be unsuccessful. If you are interested in pursuing dispute resolution, I'd suggest you consider either a Request for Comment, or Request Arbitration. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Phil, Can this entire section be copied and pasted there? I think it captures the issues well.Faustian (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, but mediation is considered to be privileged, and in this context, you shouldn't copy and paste this page. There's more information about the privileged nature of mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation communications are privileged. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point I would like to go ahead and include the undue weight tag at the top of the article. I think that at this moment there is still a bit too much difference between the draft text that I proposed, and that of Faustian. In time, I would still like to revisit the issue, and continue the debate on the talk page. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this case as unsuccessful. PhilKnight (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

References

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.