Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Turkey and the Holocaust

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Turkey and the Holocaust

(
)
  • ... that Turkey has used Holocaust commemoration to deny both the Armenian Genocide and antisemitism in Turkey? Source: Quotes from Turkish officials: "In our history, there does not exist any genocide." "Turkish society has always been away from anti-Semitic feelings [sic], has never shown any feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Our people has [sic] always embraced their Jewish brothers." https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsocf.12521
    Analysis by Baer: Beginning in 2014, Turkish Jewish community leaders have been joined in their annual Holocaust commemoration by high-ranking Turkish officials who have used the occasion each year to promote the image of Turks as rescuers of Jews, from 1492 through to World War II. Playing the part of Jewish savior against the tide of genocide, the Turkish government can vaunt its pride and claim never to have engaged in such historical crimes, thereby denying, sometimes obliquely, sometimes explicitly, the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians. — Baer 2020 p. 207
    "A second theme, unique to the Turkish case, is the determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust." https://pen.org/professional-ethics-and-the-denial-of-armenian-genocide/

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

  • buidhe This does not look like a neutral hook. Many hooks can be made on this article that are both interesting and neutral.VR talk 03:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for hooks to follow NPOV. See WP:DYKRULES. It is factual and sourced to RS which is what matters. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you go to WP:DYKRULES and look under "Content", it says The hook should be neutral.VR talk 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How is it non-neutral? It is just a fact. One that doesn't reflect well on Turkey, but many hooks don't reflect well on their subjects and have always been allowed on DYK. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that's a tricky one. I understand the NPOV concern and believe Vice regent is right about pointing to the DYK rules; but on the other hand after reading the article I believe the statement in the hook is correct, Turkey seems to do that (at least according to the sources in the article). So I would personally have difficulties wording the hook another way to present Turkey in a better light. @Vice regent could you maybe think of an example alternate hook that would satisfy NPOV for you? (Caveat: I am really not an expert on the subject, just a random Wikipedian chiming in.) --LordPeterII (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My previous hooks have often portrayed various institutions, people, or countries in a negative light. Just a few examples,
    • "that memorial director Jens-Christian Wagner blames Alternative for Germany for the increase in heckling at former Nazi concentration camps in recent years?"[1]
    • "that in September 2019, far-right politician Milan Mazurek became the first Slovak parliamentarian to lose his seat due to a crime after comparing Romani children to "animals in the zoo"?"[2]
    • "that after the Greek Civil War, 20,000 leftists were exiled to Gyaros (pictured), dubbed "Dachau of the Mediterranean"?"[3]
    • "... that the European Commission of Human Rights found in 1969 that the Greek junta systematically tortured dissidents, leading to Greece's exit from the Council of Europe?"[4]
    • " ... that the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law was intended to punish Holocaust survivors rather than Holocaust perpetrators?"[5]
    • "that death squad commander Otto Ohlendorf claimed that the extermination of 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children was a justified act of self-defense?"[6]
  • Generally, the only negative hooks that were rejected were for BLP reasons. I don't really see NPOV as something that occurs in isolation for one fact or sentence, rather for an article as a whole, but I proposed hook ALT0 as I found it the most interesting element of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

buidhe and LordPeterII How about something that actually discusses Turkey's WWII policies and considers both sides of the story:

  • Alt1: ... that during World War II Turkey helped thousands of European Jews escape the Holocaust even as it enacted a law that discriminated against Turkish Jews?
    • This is interesting because it shows the contradicting nature of Turkish policies. It also shows the good and the bad that Turkey did to Jews during WWII.
    • Source: "In November 1942, the [Turkish] government introduced a Property Tax (Varlιk Vergisi) ...[which effectively discriminated against Jews]. Meanwhile, and quite paradoxically, Turkish intervention saved many thousands of eastern European Jews from the Holocaust, by aiding their clandestine immigration into Palestine. There thus seems to have been a complete disconnect between internal and external policies. William Hale (professor), Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774, page 67VR talk 17:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Not suitable, as I explained on talk, "saved" is not a WP:IMPARTIAL way to characterize giving a limited number of transit visas. Nor is it particularly interesting or unusual because that also Spain's policy at the same time was not dissimilar, although in the spanish case the laws discriminating against non-Catholics were passed before wwii. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have trouble understanding buidhe's comments. 1. The word "saved" only applies to the indicated "saved" people. So the fact that it is a "limited number" is not an issue - the number is indicated. There is no statement that all were saved. 2. The fact that Spain - not a Muslim country - had a similar approach does not as buidhe suggests make it not "particularly interesting or unusual". 2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you read other books that focus on this topic, such as Tuvia Friling's Arrows in the Dark, you would find that all of these transits were organized and paid for not by Turkey but by Jewish organizations, who faced many restrictions in their work. Furthermore, if you are going to contrast the transit visa issue with another Turkish policy, surely it would be denaturalization. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, now Vice regent your suggestion is problematic in the exact opposite direction: If buidhe's original hook shows Turkey in a negative light, yours show it in a very positive. I mean, if they enacted laws to discriminate against Jews, but then saved lots anyway, surely the law was more of a farce? (At least it sounds like that imo.)
More importantly, ALT1 does contradict the article, as both the lede and the history section quite explicitly state that Turkey did not actively seek to rescue/save Jews, and rather let them pass through at best. There are notable examples, sure, but your hook would suggest it was a general and official rescue scheme. Especially this part of the lede, "Turkey and parts of the Turkish Jewish community have promoted exaggerated claims of rescuing Jews", is such a sentence as it directly contradicts the message of ALT1.
I understand that this is a delicate topic, and I admit that I do not have nearly enough knowledge about it (or time to acquire it) to weigh in on the neutrality discussion about the article itself. My argumentation thus will revolve solely around the eligibility of hooks for the current article.
Going back to the original hook ALT0, I must say that I am convinced by buidhe's point that they had previously gotten hooks approved that are quite critical - not unlike ALT0. Now I have previously made the mistake of invoking WP:OSE, but I do not believe this is the case here: If the DYK rules allowed several hooks to be approved that were critical extremely of Greece and Israel, why would a hook critical of Turkey be disallowed?
So in conclusion, while I value the discussion and still agree that we must be careful not to break NPOV, I do not think that this is actually the case with ALT0. Instead, ALT1 is unsuitable because it contradicts the article (in its current form). Maybe you two will want to discuss the neutrality of the article itself first (and I see at least one uninvolved editor has weighed in there), and then this DYK discussion can resume once we know what the hook should be compared against. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A full review of this nomination is needed, including all of the DYK criteria plus a fresh look at the proposed hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point I think its time to pass on this article. The talk page has pointed to clear neutrality issues in the article, which editors on the talk page have complained about. In summary, those who have looked at these offline references have argued that the wikipedia article paints Turkey in a more negative light than the sources being cited. This has been an on going discussion and it appears the issues have not been fixed after months of dialogue. Because of this we cannot approve the hooks in good faith, and given that it has been four months it is time to move on.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • 4meter4, No, the neutrality tag was removed by Shrike and is not currently on the article. There was just one editor vocally complaining about alleged NPOV issues, no one else seems to agree with him. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately the talk page doesn't reflect a strong consensus. Having input from only one other editor in that conversation, and no affirming comments from Shrike on the talk page doesn't make for a convincing case in support of the neutrality concerns being raised. It might be helpful to get the opinions of those editors here to know what their opinions are specifically in defense of the article so we can build a clearly stated consensus. Having three editors is better than just two. Shrike and Vice regent would you care to comment?4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You're forgetting Brigade Piron. I find it unacceptable that a single editor can derail a DYK nomination on totally spurious and mistaken grounds. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration, but as many of your sources are offline it is difficult as a reviewer to make up our own minds on a case like this; a fact you should appreciate by virtue that your nomination has languished for months. Brigade Piron Please comment here so we can build some consensus. I think we just need to hear from these other editors directly to help us draw a conclusion here at DYK. What's challenging is that not all of these editors participated in all of the relevant conversations on the talk page. If they are willing to chime in here and give some analysis on the neutrality issues raised, and a clearer consensus is formed I think a DYK review might be more likely to pass. Otherwise, I don't see how we could in good conscience promote this to the main page.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Buidhe has been unfortunate in the fact that the subject of this article is both niche and controversial at once. I think there are two issues which have been confused here. The initial objection was the supposed POV in the hook which seems rightly to been dropped. The issue now appears to be the tone of the article which, frankly, is never going to be very positive. Although I am certainly not an expert in this specific subject, it is no secret that Turkish history is particularly controversial area here which attracts editors with nationalistic motivation. Whatever the objections raised, it is undeniable that Buidhe's text is impeccably cited to recent scholarship on the subject. Personally I see no serious POV argument here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
[I'm inclined to agree with this point of view, as I look through it more. I am going to approve hook alt1 and AGF on the offline ref. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt1 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't support ALT1 as pointed out by LordPeterII above it is inconsistent with the article and not supported by various reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Than I suggest we pass based on no viable hook.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
No reasonable objection has been made to the original hook, which is true, supported by reliable sources, and no more "POV" than many other hooks that have been promoted without objections. However, I also thought up another hook if preferable:
Approving Alt 2 with the AGF of offline reference. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt2 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Turkey_and_the_Holocaust&oldid=1017425513"