Talk:Home Army

Active discussions
Home Army has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
June 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 19, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors  
A version of this article was copy edited by Tenryuu, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 January 2021. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

List of Righteous Among the NationsEdit

I don't see how this section can be considered NPOV in its approach. We have no section for List of Home Army members convicted of war crimes, for instance, which would be necessary to provide for balance if we're going to keep this section (we shouldn't). I think you could have a sentence on this in the "Relations with Jews" section, but I don't think it justifies a separate subsection because as far as I know, the strongest sources on Home Army–Jewish relations don't place a lot of weight on this specific award comparable to what it is given in this article. For example, I checked two reviews[1][2] of Zimmerman's book, which are of comparable length to the section about Jews, but don't mention this issue. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Removed unreferenced text about buying of weaponsEdit

I have removed the following text:

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

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

Shouldn't history be in one place?Edit

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

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

GOCE copyedit requestEdit

  • The Home Army sabotaged German transports bound for the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union, destroying German supplies and tying down substantial German forces. Are "destroying German supplies" and "tying down substantial German forces" part of sabotaging German transports, or are they different but equal ideas?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, They are a consequence of this action (sabotage). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Estimates of the Home Army's 1944 strength range between 200,000 and 600,000, the most commonly cited number being 400,000. The latter number would [...] There are three numbers in the first sentence. Which one is "latter" referring to: 600,000 or 400,000? Alternatively, is it important for the reader to understand in the lede that 400,000 is the most common number?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, I think the latter refers to 400k. And since it is an average maybe you are right and this is not necessary to clarify? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. I removed the fragment past the comma. I think the mention of "most cited number" is still present further down the article, but it doesn't seem necessary for those who are casually reading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Switched "to" with "in". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [..] about 1943–44 [...] Weird sentence fragment here, but I think the intent was to say that the Peasants' Battalions merged with the Home Army sometime in 1943 or 1944?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Seems right, although the integration was not perfect. Wartime behind-the-lines conditions etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Removed comma, added "around". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Home Army ranks included a number of female operatives; the service was very dangerous. What's the connection between the number of women serving and service being dangerous? Something is being implied here, but I don't know what it is.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Hmmmm. No particular connection, membership for any gender in any insurgent organization is 'very dangerous'. Remove? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. I removed it, as the non sequitur could have falsely implied ideas like Service in the Home Army was very dangerous, so there were female operatives to [be extra manpower/use specialised skills] that the source probably was not intending. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • [...] with over 2,000 female soldiers taken captive, with the latter number reported in contemporary press causing a "European sensation". Already edited. Was it the capture of 2,000 female soldiers that caused a "European sensation", or was the capture reported in publications that caused a "European sensation" themselves?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Official translation of the source states: ". After the fiasco of the Warsaw Uprising over 2 thousand women were taken captive by Germans, which was a European sensation, and the death toll among AK female soldiers is estimated as 5 thousand victims". Sadly, no inline citation for this was provided and I failed at investigating this further (as in, I couldn't find any other reliable source discussing this 'sensation'). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Reworked sentence to clear up ambiguity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Rowecki was willing to provide Jewish fighters with aid and resources when it contributed to "the greater war effort", but had (apparently) concluded that providing large quantities of supplies to the Jewish resistance would be futile. Is apparently necessary in parentheses? Maybe it's a source issue?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Nah, I'd remove it. Does not seem necessary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Removed parenthetical thought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Did some sentence tweaking to give it more pauses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a Ukrainian nationalist force and the military arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which some historians consider fascist, and which was fighting the Germans, Soviets and Poles—all of whom they saw as occupiers of the future ethnically-pure Ukrainian state—to direct most of its attacks against Poles and Jews.

    Asides in parentheses removed for readability. This is one incredibly long run-on sentence with no discernable verb. Is the main point of this sentence supposed to be "The situation escalated the next year when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army directed most of its attacks against Poles and Jews"? There is a lot of information being packed into this sentence, and it might be better to either remove it or put it in a footnote as it starts deviating from the Home Army.
    Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, No objections to shortening it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Although the information is tangential, it could potentially reside in a footnote to establish some context. I'll leave the two sources here if you want to reuse them.[1][2]Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • On 20 July that year the Home Army command decided to establish partisan units in Volhynia. Nine formations were created, numbering about a thousand soldiers. A thousand soldiers each or in total?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, I think total but I couldn't verify this in sources. It can probably be removed as minute detail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Notably, in January 1944 the 27th Home Army Infantry Division was formed in Volhynia. This sentence feels orphaned and should be joined with either the sentence before it or the one after it. It seems like the following sentence talks about the division further?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Right, I shortened that section per my previous comment. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done by regular editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • English variant: the article changed between British English and American English at different points, and there's no template at the top asking editors to use one or the other. I've gone ahead and changed it to British English (e.g., organizationorganisation), as it is closer geographically, but would the primary editors prefer the American variant? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done without further input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Using AK as an abbreviation: Is there any particular reason why "AK" is used in some places, and "Home Army" in others? I would suggest either using AK more frequently to refer to the Home Army or not at all.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Both are common synonyms, and I think it is ok to use both? Isn't this in fact recommended for writing good prose (i.e to use synonyms)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus I may be a little biased here as I spent more time checking the sections before where it becomes prevalent such that I forgot what it stood for.
  Suggestion: I'm not sure if FA reviewers will like it, but what about using the {{abbr}} template to remind readers what it is short for?
Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, Interesting, I haven't seen this template. I think it is probably a good idea to use it, could you implement it? Maybe in one section first, or maybe you could link a similar article where it is used? What is the practice in articles like IRA or USMC (assuming any are actually at GA+ level)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Piotrus, I've added {{abbr}} to the first mention of AK after the lede. The tooltip might need to be reworked, but I think it suits its purpose for reminding readers that Home Army is also referred to by its Polish acronym (which uses different letters). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • Women were most numerous in the communication branch [...] Did most women work in communications or was the communications branch mostly made up of women?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, Hmmm. The source states " Najbardziej czynnie kobiety działały w łączności, gdzie obejmowały także funkcje kierownicze" which translates as "Most actively women were active in communication, where they also held managerial functions" (machine translation, not pretty but correct, I'd rephrase it to "Women were most active in the communication department, where many held leadership roles"). Anyway, the original sentence is ambiguous and the source doesn't answer your question, so not sure what we can do here? PS. The article is in fact dual language, but I think the official translation of the Polish sentence is not correct: "The most active women served in communication services holding even the top posts." Anyway, that's the source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 Y Partly done. Piotrus, I've tweaked the beginning of the sentence and added "leadership roles" to the sentence. I'm assuming that the source still says that many women also worked as couriers?Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, Yes, it does. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  Courtesy ping: Itzhak RosenbergTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I would not have known otherwise. Cheers for the good work!--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Many thanks for this. Piotrus, are you able to address these concerns? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, Working on it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Thanks for answering my questions. There's still a few where I'd appreciate some input, but that's a lot of progress made. I've preserved the two references that I removed from the article should you want to still use them.  Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, Thank you for the very professional c/e.Courtesy ping to User:Buidhe, also maybe you have an idea where to move those references since they include quotes for some interesting factoids. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Much appreciated. That's all my questions addressed and I did some last-minute tweaks. Other than that it seems like my work here is done. Any last-minute things you want to go over? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, About the AK abbreviation, I see. Useful bit of code. I think it should be enough to use it once, right? Just like with hyperlinks? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, yeah, once is enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, I think that's everything on my end. Best of luck heading forward! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rudling, Per A. (November 2011). "The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths". The Carl Beck Papers. University of Pittsburgh: The Center for Russian and East European Studies (2107). p. 3 (6 of 76 in PDF). ISSN 0889-275X. From the moment of its founding, fascists were integral to, and played a central role in, the organization. The OUN avoided designating itself as fascist in order to emphasize the “originality” of Ukrainian nationalism.7 In 1941 the organization split between a more radical wing, the OUN(b), named after its leader, Stepan Bandera, and a more conservative wing, the OUN(m), led by Andrii Mel’nyk. Both were totalitarian, anti-Semitic, and fascist.
  2. ^ Cooke, Philip; Shepherd, Ben (2014). Hitler's Europe Ablaze: Occupation, Resistance, and Rebellion during World War II. Skyhorse Publishing. pp. 336–337. ISBN 978-1-63220-159-1. Jews who had escaped the Holocaust, and a large Polish minority, passionately hated UPA because it engaged in thorough ethnic cleansing, killing all the Jews it could find, about 50,000 Poles in Volhynia and between 20,000 and 30,000 Poles in Galicia.
Return to "Home Army" page.