Talk:I Corps (Polish Armed Forces in the West)

Merge

This article was recently merged to Polish Armed Forces in the West without any discussion. I think it is a notable unit that deserves its own dedicated article (also, has a more developed article on pl wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not convinced of the notability. It can be simply mentioned in other articles for the reason that it never fought as a corps -- it had purely an administrative function in the context of the Allied war effort. II Polish Corps with separate article -- definite yes; this one -- questionable. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why I believe it can easily be wound into Polish Armed Forces in the West#Army, especially in its present state. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have guides for notability of military units? I thought that all units of regiment level and above were notable. I am having trouble finding good print sources for this one, but there is no denying this unit (I Corps) existed. Some Polish sources can be seen here. Here's a ref for the formation: "8 września, na bazie wojsk ewakuowanych do Szkocji został utworzony I Korpus Polski pod dowództwem gen. M. Kukiela." Better luck with web sources, here's a relatively reliable (and dedicated!) entry at WIEM Encyklopedia which should put notability doubts to rest (if another encyclopedia discusses the subject, it should be good enough for us). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The I Corps existed -- no one is questioning that. What is in question is the notability of the formation because of its role -- it never commanded troops in combat and was an administrative headquarters only. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That takes us back to the notability question. I think all corps are notable, whether they were more combat or administrative. If taking part in combat would be a requirement, should we delete all articles on modern Swiss army units and such, for example? :) PS. Plus, there is also the argument that coverage by another encyclopedia confers notability by default, to which you have not replied yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards merge at this point. WP:MILUNIT states that units of brigade size or larger "are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion." These three books mention the I Corps in passing, but I can't find anything that gives the unit any significant treatment. The WP:GNG generally sets the bar higher than "mentioned in passing in a book about something else." If at some point a historian writes a book about Polish units in exile during the war, and dedicates even a few paragraphs to this unit, it could (and should) be recreated, but I don't think we're there yet.

If consensus is not to merge, however, the article needs to be renamed, as the current title is highly problematic. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it is likely that there is such coverage (several paragraphs), most of it is simply not well digitizied (because Google does not bother much with copyright agreements outside US). A look through snippets on Google Books suggest such a coverage; for example this book mentions a chapter (or an article) on "I KORPUS POLSKI W OBRONIE WYBRZEŻY SZKOCJI (THE FIRST POLISH CORPS DEFENDING SHORES OF SCOTLAND)". And there is the WIEM encyclopedia article, which I am a bit annoyed people seem to be ignoring, despite the fact that I brought its existence up twice already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, to meet the threshold for notability, the reference has to be more than "in passing." Have you found anything that devotes more than a sentence or two to this unit? It would be helpful if you could get that book to see exactly what it says. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; the GNG states that, "'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources." Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, I was not aware that tertiary source is not sufficient for notability. I'll ask on N talk for clarification, as this may impact my view on many other issues. I think there are sources with significant coverage, but I cannot prove they exist online without devoting much more time to parsing through Google Book's snippets to find the lucky one where I can copy several paragraphs of texts. A search for ""I Korpus" Szkocja" shows hundreds of hits in Polish snippet sources, and many excerpts from looks like a larger paragraphs, which in some cases I'd expect to go for quite some length. Here are some longer examples:

• From [1] (p.88): "I Korpus został skierowany do obrony części wybrzeża wschodniego Szkocji nad Morzem Północnym od zatoki Firth of Forth do Montrose, z węzłem kluczowym Perth. Był to ważny odcinek w obronie wybrzeża Szkocji, gdyż posiadał duże plaże, dogodne do przeprowadzenia desantu. Zadaniem korpusu było rozpoznać i zniszczyć nieprzyjaciela na bronionym odcinku. Aby temu sprostać przystąpiono do budowy umocnień na plażach, zapór przeciwczołgowych, na miejsce starych wznosząc nowe zamaskowane fortyfikacje, niekiedy wykuwając je w skale. Równocześnie przystąpiono do intensywnego szkolenia, opanowywania otrzymanego sprzętu i prowadzenia walk w skalistym terenie i różnych sytuacjach bojowych. Dużą aktywność przejawiali oficerowie korpusu, uczestnicząc w licznych ćwiczeniach organizowanych przez dowództwo szkockiego okręgu wojskowego. Dowództwo polskie przygotowało szczegółowe plany obrony oraz reorganizowało jednostki korpusu, w miarę otrzymywania uzbrojenia i sprzętu. Tak przykładowo w połowie lipca 1941 r. wycofano z rejonu obrony oddziały pancerne i utworzono z nich zgrupowanie pancerno- -motorowe, późniejszą dywizję pancerną. W listopadzie natomiast 4. Brygadę Kadrową Strzelców przekształcono w 1. Brygadę Spadochronową z dowodcą płk. Stanisławem Sosabowskim. Przydział nowej broni wymagał skierowania do jej obsługi żołnierzy z brygad piechoty, co uszczuplało obsadę wyznaczonej linii obronnej. Braki te zastępowano pozostającymi w większości dotąd w odwodzie oficerskimi brygadami kadrowymi. Wojsko Polskie gotujące się do obrony Szkocji, szkolące się, pełne zapału do odparcia ewentualnego desantu morskiego czy lotniczego było wizytowane przez różnego szczebla dowództwa polskie i brytyjskie oraz odwiedzane przez najwyższe..."
• From [2]: "Rozkazem naczelnego wodza z 28 września powołano I Korpus; jego dowództwo powierzył Sikorski 3 października gen. Kukielowi. Od 18 października Korpus wszedł w skład armii szkockiej, a w dwa dni później przejął odpowiedzialność za odcinek obrony Szkocji nad Morzem Północnym od zatoki Firm of Forth do Montrose, z kluczowym węzłem w Perth (łącznie 200 km wybrzeża, z czego 30 km uznano za dogodne do lądowania nieprzyjaciela). Korpus składał się z brygad strzelców i jesienią 1940 r. stanowił równowartość dywizji piechoty. Na początku listopada, z inicjatywy gen. Maczka 2. Brygada Strzelców przemieniona została na 10. Brygadę Kawalerii Pancernej. Latem 1941 r. rozpoczęły się też prace mające na celu przekształcenie 4. kadrowej Brygady Strzelców w jednostkę spadochronową. Ku takiemu rozwiązaniu dążył dowódca brygady, płk dypl. Stanisław Sosabowski. Jednostki I Korpusu nie mogły jednak wchłonąć wszystkich polskich oficerów. Część z nich - w większości mało przydatnych lub wręcz nie nadających się do służby liniowej - ulokowano na wyspie Bute, tuż pod Glasgow, w komfortowym letnisku. Większość skierowanych tam oficerów potraktowała to jako „zesłanie" i już Większość skierowanych tam oficerów potraktowała to jako „zesłanie" i już wkrótce opozycja upowszechniała zarzut, iż Sikorski stworzył dla swoich przeciwników politycznych nową Berezę. Część oficerów zaciągnęła się do pociągów pancernych, inni zaś do brytyjskiej służby w Afryce Zachodniej. Polskie siły lądowe w Wielkiej Brytanii, czyli skadrowany 1 Korpus, pozbawione były jednak w Zjednoczonym Królestwie bazy rekrutacyjnej. Sikorski, dla którego w miarę liczebne, nowocześnie uzbrojone i dobrze wyszkolone wojsko miało być jednym z najważniejszych instrumentów realizacji polskich celów wojny, wiązał ogromne nadzieje z patriotyczną postawą Polonii w obu..."

There are dozens if not hundreds of books with various overivew of parts of I Corps history. To end, [3] discusses the I Corps publications:

• "Na terenie Szkocji ożywioną działalność wydawniczą prowadzi I Korpus, który obok podręczników fachowych i ogólno-kształcących publikuje serię pt. Wydawnictwo Literackie Oddziału Opieki nad Żołnierzem D-twa I Korpusu."

Sadly, till Google Books content becoems more friendly towards non-English works, I am not prepared to devote much time and dig through hundreds of books, most of which are not in my local libraries, and most of which will not have the required dedicated section, just to find the few that do. I think that the above mentions and links demonstrate the notability of the subject (non-trivial coverage and mentions in multiple sources). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. With regards to tetriary sources, I found this unit's entries in PWN Encyklopedia ([4]) and Interia Encyklopedia ([5]) as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Piotrus above is heading in the right direction. Buckshot06 is right in that the Corps never had to fight as one on the front line. This however was mostly because the flyboys did their job and herr Hitler did not come to the UK in the end. But the main task of the force was to protect the coastline of Scotland - and this it did. Whether the Krauts landed or not doesn't really matter, it wouldn't be the only Allied unit not to see combat in the role it was created for.

I would leave the article where it is, the unit after all did exist, in contrast to countless non-existent units that have their articles on WP. And IMO it was far more notable than, say, countless brigades from the American Civil War featured in Wikipedia, numbering 300 men and taking part in "battles" where two people were wounded (also featured in Wikipedia). Also compare this one with VII Corps (United Kingdom) or First United States Army Group, units that never actually existed, yet are definitely notable enough. //Halibutt 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Halibutt, some of this is speculation. I'll bet the real reason that I Corps never saw combat was there were never enough full strength and fully equipped Polish divisions in Great Britain to warrant having another Polish corps headquarters in the field -- the "defense of Scotland" was an activity to keep troops occupied after the German air effort failed. The real Polish ground combat power in GB was the armoured division and the airborne brigade -- both of which got committed to the continent. As for the other (and yes, they may well be non-notable) articles, well, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists -- no reason in itself to maintain I Corps as a separate article. No one is contending the unit is not worthy of mention, but simply: is it notable enough to warrant a separate article, especially given the small amount of text in it? W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I still definitely go with Mr Wilson. As it is now, it definitely should be merged. Halibutt, I believe your point on nonexistent formations is incorrect: I've been assiduous in merging & redirecting American phantom formations of division level and below; VII Corps existed (and commanded our brigade in the UK at one point!!) and FUSAG is notable as a part of Quicksilver/Fortitude. Truly, separately or here, which nonexistent formation articles are you aware of? I'll start deletion/merging debates for them; they shouldn't be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't love this article enough to spend time searching for links to ACW articles of lesser notability, I just stumbled upon a plethora of them over the years.

In any way, I understand your point, but I'd still keep the article. We have articles on units that took part in occupation/peacekeeping duties in other theatres (Korea, Germany, Japan) and it's fine with me. Those are notable. So is this one IMHO. We also have articles on much smaller units notable for this or that reason. This corps, even if small and not in front-line service, did take part in military operations. At the same time we have articles on smaller-sized units of countries that did not take part in any war in the last century, which is also fine by me.

Long thing short, I don't see how would Wikipedia be a better place if we deleted this article. But of course the difference between us is that I'm a self-declared inclusionist. //Halibutt 13:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Halibutt, I also favor inclusion vice deletion in Wikipedia. But casting the discussion in those terms should not let us forget that even if this article were to be deleted, the information in it would still be preserved in Wikipedia -- just within the framework of a different article. As I see it, this is not so much about the content of this article (it is fine by me), but more about the structure of "article space" in the MILHIST set of Wikipedia articles. I would contend by having a more organized article space, the MILHIST section of Wikipedia could indeed be "a better place", at least in terms of what some disciplines would term "configuration management". Merging this article IMO would be a tiny step in that direction, but whether the content here retains its own article or not, it is a small blip on the Wiki radar. If it were up to me alone, I'd go with a merge. With these comments, I'll drop off this discussion and will cheerfully support any decision the community comes to regarding the merge suggestion. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This [6] appears to be a work (looks like part of a series) dedicated exclusively to this formation. It's a long discussion above, so sorry if this has already been brought up. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it was a body numbering between 15,000 to 20,000 [7] people, it was above brigade size, it was led by several very prominent Generals ... I'm having trouble seeing how this is NOT notable. You get 15,000 people together in one place, name Karl Malden their general and have them sit around on the lawn and discuss Victorian poetry... who cares if they never see combat, it's notable. Volunteer Marek  21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)