Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Holocaust in Slovakia/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2020 [1].

The Holocaust in Slovakia

edit
Nominator(s): buidhe 14:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reworked since the previous nomination. Almost all the text is backed up with quotes from sources on this page. As an added bonus, I was able to reduce length by using summary style. Many thanks to all the feedback on the previous FAC: @SchroCat, FunkMonk, Gog the Mild, Brigade Piron, and Ealdgyth: buidhe 14:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment: It might be beneficial to add an English translation of the Slovak into the "description" parameter of File:Antisemitická Propaganda na Slovensku.jpg which is currently used in the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. buidhe 00:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

We did this to death the last time round. I have checked the new images and my only comments are:

  • The source for "File:Birkenau Jewish mothers and their children walking to the gas chambers.jpg" is dead.
    • Repaired
  • Five of the new images do not have alt text.
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eisfbnore

edit
  • Okay, right off the bat, I think the very first sentence could be rewritten slightly for flow and style. Why not have the time indicator in the first line, rather than the second? Since it is the first paragraph, I think it also should mention WWII as the frame. Also, why 'during H' rather than 'in H'?
    • Reworded. I don't think it needs mentioning the dates that WWII started and finished.
  • 2nd para: Why 'according to First Vienna Award'? You're not citing an opinion here. I'd write 'following', although there are other options
    • Changed to "in the First Vienna Award".
  • 4th para: I find the two-word mini-clause 'most emigrated' a bit awkward, if grammatically correct. Also, comma splice in the following sentence
    • Reworded
  • "The party began to emphasize antisemitism during the late 1930s following a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria after its 1938 annexation by Nazi Germany and anti-Jewish laws passed by the neighboring states of Hungary, Poland, and Romania." – a bit long and unwieldy
    • Reworded
  • "In October 1939, Tiso (leader of the conservative/clerical branch of HSĽS) became president; Vojtech Tuka, leader of the party's radical/fascist wing, was appointed prime minister" – I don't think the MoS allows for parentheses out in the open like that. Same with the slash
    • Reworded slightly
  • "After the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, the Slovak government viewed remembering the Holocaust as a way of demonstrating the country's European identity before it joined the European Union in 2004." – a bit clumsy, too many verbs
    • Rephrased
  • "Although there were no transports until the end of September, the Jews experienced harsh treatment (including rape and murder) and severe overcrowding as the population swelled to 3,000 – more than twice the intended capacity" – see earlier comments

Those are my preliminary comments. Eisfbnore (会話) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

edit
  • In the "Slovak independence" section there is both "80%" and "95-percent" used, and I see a later use of "8.3 percent". It would be best to be consistent and use one version throughout.
    • Changed all to use "percent". The hyphens are required before a noun but not otherwise.
  • The sentences starting with "A 1940 census found that 89,000 Jews lived in the Slovak State..." feels kind of tagged on where it is and out of place. Seeing how the next section is an overview of anti-Jewish measures, it may be better to move all the above there, as it serves as a good compliment to summarizing the situation of Jews in Slovakia at the time.
    • Done
  • "Adolf Eichmann, who had been sent to Bratislava..." Should add a brief note of who Eichmann was: something simple like "Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who had been sent to Bratislava..." would be suffice.
    • Done
  • "The deportations occurred just after Germany's Polenaktion, a similar event." Again I'd add a small clarification of what the Polenaktion was: "Polanaktion, a similar event in Poland." I realise it's linked, but it should still be clear to the reader without having to look too hard.
    • Reworded
  • "The deportations occurred just after Germany's Polenaktion, a similar event; attracted international criticism, reduced British investment, increasing dependence on German capital; and were a rehearsal for the 1942 deportations." This reads awkwardly, with the semi-colons and commas. It isn't clear if the Slovak deportations of the Polenaktion were the focus of criticism, reduced investment, and so on.
    • Reworded

* Note: have stopped at the "Aryanization" section; will continue below. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the head of the Šariš-Zemplín region ordered local Jews to wear a yellow band around their left arm from 5 April 1941, leading to attacks." Attacks by Slovaks on Jews, I presume? I would clarify that.
    • Done
  • "The Slovaks agreed to pay 500 Reichsmarks per Jew deported (ostensibly to cover shelter, food, retraining and housing)[142][143] and an additional fee to the Deutsche Reichsbahn for transport. (The 500 Reichsmark fee was equivalent to about USD$125 at the time,[67] or $1,956 today)." There's an extra period here; either remove the one after "transport", or after the parenthesis.
    • OK, removed the parenthesis to avoid any MOS issue.

Other than that I think it is good. Solid overview of a complex topic. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review by Factotem

edit

Not well informed about this subject or its historiography, and not really able to make informed comments about any of the foreign language sources. Nevertheless, I've looked into this as best I can, and have the following observations:

  • Sources are displaying "CS1 maint: ref=harv". I understand there's been a recent change that makes the |ref=harv parameter redundant, and its presence is generating this message
    • Removed all "harv" parameters
  • #ref 55 p. -> pp.
    • Fixed
  • #ref 230 (Kornberg 2015 p. 85) links the page number to gbooks, but that gbooks edition has a different ISBN number than the one provided in the Sources listing.
    • When I clicked the link, Gbooks said the long ISBN was "9781442622586" compared to 978-1-4426-2258-6 in the article, which is the same number. The ISBN is different in short format.
This is the problem with gbook links. If you look at the listing it does indeed state the ISBN 22586, but if you look at p. iv in the preview it gives a different ISBN ending 2828-1. Gbooks often previews a different edition to the one it lists. The listing states 424 pages, and although I can't be certain it looks to me like the preview edition is only 406. That difference in pagination may impact the page numbering in your inline refs. Factotem (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. From the publisher's website it appears to be the print vs. epub editions. I have cited the isbn ending in 2828-1, which corresponds to the print edition. buidhe 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you check the year for Sokolovič's Hlinkova Garda 1938 – 1945? From the pdf it looks to me like it should be 2009, not 2013 as listed in the Sources.
    • I honestly don't know where I got 2013 from. Fixing.
  • Putik's thesis is dated in the Sources to 2015, but the only date I can see in the linked document is the defence date in 2016
    • On the title page it says "Praha 2015" and the recommended citation also gives 2015 as the date even though it was apparently defended in February 2016. It seems most online guides recommend giving the date of publication rather than defense, so I'm going to stick with 2015.
  • Can you check the publisher for Deák's Europe on Trial? I've looked through the 2015 editions on Worldcat, the gbooks link for the ISBN and isbnsearch.org and none of them list Routledge in London as the publlisher.
    • According to the title page of the version I used, it was published by Westview Press which is an imprint of Routledge. I have edited it to state the imprint and also fixed the location, which was wrong.
  • Can you check the publisher for Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. The Sources section states United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, but Worldcat and isbnsearch.org state Indiana University Press
    • The book officially was published by IUPress, but produced by the USHMM. I am not quite sure what that means, but since all the editors are from USHMM it seems that they did most of the work while IUPress had no more than a minor role in editorial control.
  • I checked through the publishers and looked briefly into those I did not recognise - Brill, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Berghahn Books and National Memory Institute. The last gave me pause for further, brief investigation based on the contents of its WP article, but that source is used twice, for statements that don't appear to be relevant to the criticisms/issues mentioned in the WP article.
  • I looked briefly into The Slovak Spectator as the only English language web site that wasn't obvious to me as reliable, and did not see anything on that site's About Us page to suggest any issues.
  • In terms of comprehensiveness, the quantity of sources is impressive. In addition to my own brief survey above, I note that in the previous FAC attempt there is no indication of any doubt about the reliability of the sources. I checked through the article history, and since that last FAC, it appears that two new sources have been added: Nižňanský's On Relations between the Slovak Majority and Jewish Minority During World War II and Šindelářová's Finale der Vernichtung: die Einsatzgruppe H in der Slowakei 1944/1945, neither of which, based on the publishers, lead to me to suspect the general statement on reliability has changed since that last FAC
  • Insofar as my review can go, I can find nothing major to concern me. But, I note that the last FAC failed on spotchecks, something that I'm in no position to check myself, hence this can only be a partial review. Sorry. Factotem (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KIENGIR
Thank you, - I've read through this page, but still did not find on what you have referred -, you did not say earlier it was added because of any references. On the talk page everyone may read our conversation, the catch is the common sense and precise evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Support from Cass

edit

The noms are certainly brave taking in such an emotive subject, and I tip my hat to them for doing an excellent job writing it. I can see no issues whatsoever. CassiantoTalk 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

edit

Ten sentences randomly picked from the article. I'm using the source quotes given here, taking it on faith that they are accurate quotes. Buidhe, thanks for setting that up; it makes this a straightforward task and must have been a great deal of work.

  • The United States and Switzerland issued formal protests against the deportation of Jews. Verified.
  • Following the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, authorities cracked down on free expression, while anti-Zionist propaganda, much of it imported from the Soviet Union, intensified and veered into antisemitism after Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. First half verified. For the part starting "while anti-Zionist...", I don't see where the supporting text is on your source page -- can you point me at it?
    • I didn't type this up but here it is:

      Antisemitism and the attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict simply became a part of the public debate by 1968, and this fact was to shape the developments after the Soviet-led invasion. During the normalization, the Party conservative circles, which were under Soviet patronage, soon re-sponded to the previous discussion. They built their discourse on the articles that emerged at the time of the 1967 conflict before the liberalization process in Czechoslovakia reached its peak, as well as on the import of anti-Zionist rhetoric from the Soviet Union. In the following years, Czechoslovakia assumed, alongside the Soviet Union, the position of a socialist country with the most vicious anti-Zionist, and, in certain cases, even antisemitic discourse.

      — on 218
  • The party began to emphasize antisemitism during the late 1930s following a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria in 1938 and anti-Jewish laws passed by Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Verified.
  • It was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state, but occupied an intermediate status. Verified.
  • Interest in emigration among Jews surged after the invasion of Poland, as Jewish refugees from Poland told of atrocities there. Verified.
  • The Land Reform Act of February 1940 turned 101,423 hectares (250,620 acres) of land owned by 4,943 Jews, about 40 percent of it arable, over to the State Land Office; the land officially passed to the state in May 1942. Verified. A minor suggested tweak: you might make it "more than 40%", as it's closer to 45%.
    • Done
  • Leaders of the Jewish community were divided about how to respond to this development. Verified.
  • No record survives of this meeting, at which the deportation of Jews from Slovakia was probably first discussed, leading to historiographical debate over who proposed the idea. Verified. I assume the differing date in one of the sources is uncontroversially in error; you might put a footnote in pointing this out.
  • Members of the Hlinka Guard, the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel, and the gendarmerie were in charge of rounding up the Jews, guarding the transit centers, and eventually forcing them into train cars for deportation. Verified.
  • This occurred for nine transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942. From 1 August to 18 September, no transports departed; most of the Jews not exempt from deportation had already been deported or had fled to Hungary. I would make it "end of July", not "1 Aug"; the source is not precise so we should not be. The comments on the verification page say "see data tables"; am I blind for not seeing these in either the article or the verification page?
    • Both sources have a list/table of transports with the last before the break leaving the country on 1 August. I was not sure how to paste that onto the evidence page. The transports were usually overnight and this one probably left Zilina on 31 July and crossed the border early in the morning on 1 August (although I would not be able to verify that). However, most sources date the transports from when they cross the border so it would be potentially misleading to say it was in July. buidhe 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good; just a a couple of questions above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Source spot check passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from PM

edit

I'm left wondering about the history of Jewish people living in this area prior to 1896 and the extent of anti-semitism during the later period it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. When did Jews come to this area and what sort of Jews were they? Were the Jews isolated from the Slovak population or integrated? Had there been any pogroms in the area under Hungarian rule etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that unfortunately, given the poor state of the History of the Jews in Slovakia article, the Further information template is inadequate, and the Background section of this article needs expansion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I have added some information. The background is really not something that sources on the Holocaust in Slovakia go into in any detail, so I am not sure how much more would be WP:DUE. buidhe 02:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way WP:UNDUE to provide background on the history of anti-semitism in Slovakia in an article about the genocide of Jews in Slovakia. The history of anti-semitism in this region is very important background to this article:

  • The History of the Jews in Slovakia reliably cites that Jews were present in what is now Slovakia since the 11thC, and History of the Jews in Bratislava reliably cites Jews in Bratislava since 1250.
    • What Hutzelmann says is that "Jewish communities" plural did not exist until the late 18th century, which is debateable, but I have added a different source which has a different account.
  • This source cites a 2001 article entitled November's Brutal Bonfire: Anarchy and Anti-Semitism in the Slovak Revolution of 1918 which is likely to have further information.
  • This source] mentions a pogrom in Trnava in 1870, and restrictions on Jewish movement from as early as 1495 and also 1539 to 1800.
    • What's the relevance? No source on the Holocaust in Slovakia considers this relevant to what happened in the 1930s-40s.
  • all Jews were apparently expelled from Bratislava in 1360, and in the first half of the 15thC they were forced to live in a ghetto, and expelled again after the Battle of Mohács in 1526, and allowed to return in the 1700s
  • there were pogroms in Bratislava during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848
  • there were apparently 135K Jews in Slovakia in 1921, but only 89K in 1940. This would bear explaining.
    • Already explained: most lived in the areas annexed by Hungary and another 6,000 emigrated.

Another Background para broadly summarising this history of anti-semitism in Slovakia would be desirable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peacemaker67:,
I have to inform you that what you are referring belongs/covered in the article of History of the Jews in Hungary, starting with a timeline over 1000 years up today, anything connected with to the Kingdom of Hungary is naturally there. It should be carefully noted what goes to Hungary (-1920) and what to Slovakia (1920- inside Czechsolovakia,, 1939-1945 as an own state, etc.). We should not confuse the two, I understand the Slovak version of the article is meant also to cover what is the present-day territory's history, and not necessarily being an own state (just to avoid repetitions), but i.e. History of the Jews in Bratislava is not in in a separated scope, there anything connected the Hungarian Era or (Czecho)Slovak era may ultimately go. Thus I propose a short summarization in the Slovak article what concerns earlier than 1920, and filled with possible redirects to the Hungarian article.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree. Given the scope of the article, it is necessary for this article to fill in the background properly. The Slovak people (not the state) were living on the lands that were included in the Slovak State for centuries living alongside Jews, and any history of anti-semitism in these lands and by the Slovak people is directly relevant to this article, which includes the role of Slovak people in the Holocaust. A para about the history of anti-semitism in these lands prior to the creation of Czechoslovakia is definitely required. It doesn't have to cover every pogrom in nauseating detail, but it needs to give a general sense of the historical treatment of Jews by Slovak people. A very brief mention of "traditional religious antisemitism" doesn't cut it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, if you refer to the anti-semitism regarding Slovaks in connection with Jews, of course, but anything that was related to the Hungarians or the Hungarian state itself, should not. Though in the article there is alread an Early history and a 19th century section, so the route is open...(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about, the history of anti-semitism by Slovaks towards Jews in these lands is what needs to be in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a bit on the nineteenth-century history, but I am not sure what the relevance is on going further back because none of the sources has deemed it relevant. The article already explains how antisemitism in Slovakia evolved in the early 20th century and how it became part of the program of the Slovak People's Party. Is there a specific aspect which would benefit from clarification? buidhe 12:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly satisfied with this response, but have a few other points which I'll get to after another read through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some additional things:
Lead
  • suggest "In October 1938, a month after the Munich Agreement, Slovakia unilaterally declared its autonomy within Czechoslovakia, but lost significant territory to Hungary in the First Vienna Award which was signed in November. The following year..." and drop the existing link to Czechoslovakia
    • Done
  • suggest "declared independence from Czechoslovakia with German encouragement and protection"
    • Partly done, encouragement implies the latter and trying to be concise in the lead.
  • both "Germany invaded Slovakia" and "Slovak National Uprising" link to Slovak National Uprising
  • suggest "After liberation by the Red Army, survivors faced renewed antisemitism"
    • done
  • "The Slovak government's complicity in the Holocaust remains a source of controversy." seems unsupported by the body, it seems clear that they facilitated it
    • Changed to "continues to be disputed by far-right nationalists".
Background
  • say that "Upper Hungary" covered much of what is now Slovakia
    • I just got rid of the term rather than try to explain it
      • I think that is a backwards step. Better to explain where this occurred in contemporary terms and explain how it relates to the entity being discussed in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I actually checked the source and it does not say anything about Upper Hungary, it just says "Anti-Jewish riots break out in western and central Slovakia" (in 1848–1849). It's hard for me to understand what an explanation of Upper Hungary would add to a reader's understanding of this article's subject, when "Slovak lands" is historically accurate and works just as well. buidhe 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Slovak national movement link History of Slovakia#Slovak National Movement
    • Done
  • should it be "anti-Jewish riots broke out in the wake of the Revolutions of 1848"?
    • Yes, fixed
  • "Jews were strongly associated with the Hungarian and Czechoslovak" seems out of place (in respect of Czechoslovakia), as we are only told about the establishment of Czechoslovakia in the next para, suggest replicating the sense of the sentence as it relates to Czechoslovakia in a sentence inserted after "(in 1921)".
    • Done
  • "although the violence was not nearly as serious as in Ukraine or Poland" seems to be trying to minimise. Is it relevant and necessary? If Poland is retained (I don't suggest it), link Second Polish Republic here, not later
    • It's highly relevant. Most of the postworld war I anti-Jewish violence readers are likely to know about is that east of Slovakia, where it was orders of magnitude more severe. I do not want to leave the false impression that thousands of Jews were murdered in Slovakia.
  • suggest piping Anschluss#Actions against the Jews to "a wave of Jewish refugees from Austria" rather than 1938 which is highly easter-eggy
    • Done
Some of the modifications I disagree recommended here, because they are inaccurate and unnecessary, will address the few in the edit log, as well disagree of eliminating Upper Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
(KIENGIR FYI, the changes that you objected to were recommended by Peacemaker, not Piotrus. buidhe 07:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, I know, sorry, should I relocate my comment in his section?(KIENGIR (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved it. buidhe 07:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AS I've noted above, I don't think removing Upper Hungary is actually helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, also here I reply you above comment, even if it is in the source, it is innacurate and follows that lazy practice that try to project present-day status quo to contemporary one, that should be avoided since it may lead to confusions. The term Slovakia or Slovak-lands that time is not well or could not be properly defined, as Hungarians also lived there and we cannot conceal it has been part of Hungary then (that is anyway a problematic practise of some authors), so mentioning it is totally complies with c/e and close pharaphrasing, that we anyway use when authours are lazy or less accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, sorry if because of my comment placed in a improper place intitially would have confused me and you, yes I see the execution of your recommendation ended up in a different way you addressed (thus may initial comment was meant in general), now I repaired it with a compromise, you may see in the recent edit, so yes, we agree and not disagree on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Rest of article
  • recommend "the Sudetenland, a primarily German-speaking area of Czechoslovakia" I don't think I've ever seen a source refer to the Munich Agreement affecting the "Czech lands" this is unnecessary parsing
    • Done
  • was Czechoslovak an ethnicity? I thought people were Czechoslovak citizens and ethically Czech, Slovak, German, Hungarian etc
    • Exact quote from Ward: "All in all, Hungary received over 10,000 square kilometers with more than 850,000 inhabitants. Slovakia’s losses included around 40 percent of her arable land and some 270,000 “Czechoslovaks” according to the 1930 census."
  • "but never carried out an execution before World War II."
    • The existing text is supported by the source, which says "the Slovak state never carried out a single death sentence". Obviously this doesn't count people who were killed outside of Slovakia or extrajudicial executions, and I've modified to be more clear.
  • per MOS:PERCENT, "95 percent vote"
    • That's not what MOS:PERCENT says, none of their examples have x percent used as an adjective.
  • under German protection→with German encouragement and protection
    • Done
  • foreign-policy→foreign policy
    • Done
  • "It was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state, but occupied an intermediate status" isn't a good reflection of the reliable sources, neither is the selection presented in the note. Quite a few describe it as a puppet state, and others as a satellite, others as a satellite. I suggest something like "Sources vary on the status of the Slovak State, with some describing it as a puppet state and others as a client state or satellite state." with citations of each of course.
    • Not done—from everything I've read, the recent trend in the last couple of decades is to place more emphasis on Slovak autonomy/independence from Germany, while emphasizing its responsibility for crimes.
      • For "puppet state", see [2] (2000), [3] (2010), [4] (2013), [5] (2013), [6] (2004), also p. 288 of Joseph A. Mikuš' Slovakia: A Political and Constitutional History : with Documents (1995), and that is just the first page of a Google Books results for "slovakia puppet state". For satellite state, see [7] (2006), [8] (2011), [9] (2012). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think these are very strong sources. Only one of the ones using "puppet state" is focused on the World War II Slovak State, they seem to be copying the descriptor from some other source (probably dated ones). The only exception is the last one, which is from 25 years ago and not a top-notch publisher as far as I can tell. The term "puppet state" is misleading because, according to the sources I have read, until the German occupation of the country, the Slovak State clearly had more autonomy and freedom of action than the other entities described as "puppet states" of Nazi Germany. All the sources that I've read particularly emphasize its autonomy in implementing anti-Jewish laws and arranging the deportation of Jews (and then stopping these actions against German wishes) prior to 1944. I could agree with "described as a client state[1] or satellite state[2]", but I think the current version of the article does a better job of explaining different views on Slovakia's autonomy, since most readers probably don't know the difference between a client state and a satellite state. buidhe 01:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but what? Those sources include an academic examination of the political and constitutional history of Slovakia published by Academic Press (Mikuš), the Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism, Czecho/Slovakia: Ethnic Conflict, Constitutional Fissure, Negotiated Breakup is published by the University of Michigan, Slovakia on the Road to Independence is published by Penn State University, Encyclopedia of the Developing World and Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe are also published by Routledge, and they are just the ones that say puppet state. Of the satellite state sources, one is written by Anton Špiesz, a Slovak historian awarded the Pribina Cross for contributions to Slovak history, Slovakia in History is published by Cambridge University Press, and The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies is obviously published by Oxford University Press. It would be hard to find a stronger selection of sources, most are from university presses, the rest are from very high quality presses like Routledge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is the sources that call it a "puppet state" are not very strong, the authors do not appear to have done any original research that would lead them to this conclusion but are clearly quoting other sources (except in the one case). These are sources which are mostly about Slovakia in the 1990s and it's unclear where the authors got the idea that it is a "puppet state" is this just a habitual label or has any thought gone into it? Here is a specific analysis of why I don't think the sources have much weight:
  • 2000 book: references a controversial rally about the Slovak State, calls it "puppet state" but does not cite any source for it except newspaper articles from the 1990s[10]
  • 2010 book's full title is: Slovakia on the road to independence : an American diplomat's eyewitness account. Not a very strong source for wwii history.
  • 2013 book, titled Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism, apparently a tertiary source. Chapter is about "37. Czechoslovakia: A Peaceful Disintegration" by Michal Ilner. He appears to be citing Jozef Lettrich (d. 1969) for the World War II history. Needless to say the historiography has advanced a lot with access to the post-communist archives.
  • Other 2013 book: Encyclopedia of the Developing World, tertiary source, no inline citations, I cannot find out who wrote the entry.
  • 2004 book: Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe, (about post-communist nationalism), cites no source for WWII state being a "puppet state" but seems to take it as given
  • 1995 book: Arguably this is the strongest source, but I repeat that this notion has been challenged by higher quality and more recent sources.

The use of "puppet state" is frequent as a habitual label, but more recent scholarly sources that specifically have researched the history of the Slovak State have questioned the idea that it was a "puppet state", for instance Tatjana Tönsmeyer and James Mace Ward. The satellite state label is supported, but again I question how helpful it is because most readers will not have a political science background and know what the distinction is between client vs. satellite and so forth. buidhe 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we have articles on all three types of pseudo-states, and they can be linked. This is a problem for me because the idea that Slovakia was a puppet state is not fringe and should be reflected in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ward 2013, p. 161.
  2. ^ Kamenec 2011a, p. 184.
  • italicise Freiwillige Schutzstaffel
    • Done
  • I don't think the "Overview" subsection works, much of it is redundant and we don't have leads for sections. If this is about measures taken between 1938 and 1941, I suggest dropping the Overview and integrating any unique material into the thematic subsections below it (and try to keep them chronological). For example, the emigration of Jews between 1938 and 1940 is stated twice, once in the Overview and once at the end of the 1938 deportation and emigration subsection. I'll continue once this is dealt with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of emigrants is the only repeated information, because it is both relevant to the population of Jews and to emigration itself. Another reviewer explicitly asked me to move the population information from the Slovak State section above. There are no sections eg. for antisemitic propaganda and random violence against Jews because such sections would be very short. And statements that generally summarize overall measures such as "The persecution of Jews was a key element of the state's domestic policy." would not easily fit into any of the below sections, but are important as an overview.
  • "Around 5,000 and 6,000 Jews had emigrated", but this is just another example of the narrative jumping around here. Why talk about 1940, then 1938 to 1940, then 1938, then the 1938 deportations in detail. Why not put this material in chronological order and integrate this info into the subsections? "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." is already in the 1938 deportation and emigration section where it belongs.
  • "OnIn his first radio address"
    • Done
  • add a sentence explaining what the First Vienna Award was when first mentioned in the body
    • I think this would be redundant, since the context makes it clear that we're discussing the partition/cession which was first discussed in the "Slovak independence" section. It would be better to try to shoehorn the words "First Vienna Award" into the prior section.
  • suggest "were transferred illegally to the Czech landsrump Czechoslovakia"
    • That's not quite right as until 14 March 1939, Slovakia was also part of rump Czechoslovakia.
  • to avoid confusion with ethnicity suggest "Slovakian government officials", suggest using Slovakian throughout unless referring to ethnic Slovaks
    • I don't think there is a semantic difference between the two terms as you suggest. I checked Oxford English Dictionary which gives exactly the same definition for both, the only difference is that Slovak is "The more usual term in U.S. usage, in preference to Slovakian". Most of the sources uniformly use "Slovak", which I also prefer.
  • "of Jewish property under Aryanization."
    • Done
  • "the tight limits imposed by the British on legal emigration to Mandatory Palestine"
    • Done
  • once you've introduced Nazi Germany in the body, use Germany thereafter, we all know who we're talking about and it is unnecessarily repetitive
  • "They stood to gain a significant amount of money; in 1940, Jews registered more than 4.322 billion Slovak koruna (Ks) in property (38 percent of the national wealth)" and later "Jews were required to register their property; their bank accounts (valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941)[d] were frozen, and Jews were allowed to withdraw only 1,000 Ks (later 150 Ks) per week" seem to be repeating information ie Jewish registration of property. Perhaps the latter could be modified to say "Jews continued to register their property..."
  • "Christian publications"? do you mean church newspapers, or newspapers run by Christians?
    • Clarified
  • "German negotiators convinced the Slovaks"? Perhaps you could mention Tiso, Tuka and Mach attended, especially as Mach became Interior Minister. Suggest "At the July 1940 Salzburg Conference, attended by Tiso, Tuka, and Tuka's fellow radical fascist, Alexander Mach, German negotiators convinced the Slovaks to replace several members of the cabinet with reliably pro-German radicals."
    • Not done—I don't think that listing the attendees of the conference would be adding anything to this article, since the details are already in the linked article. I did replace convince with demand because that is more accurate reflection of what was going on.
  • "By mid-1940, the position of Jews in the Slovak economy had been largely wiped out." seems out of place chronologically
    • Moved.
  • for expropriation link Nationalization#Expropriation
    • Done
  • "but had little expertise in running Jewish businesses"
    • Done
  • "During the Slovak Republic's existence, the government gained 1,100 million Ks from Aryanization and spent 900–950 million Ks on enforcing anti-Jewish measures.[e] In 1942, it paid the German government an additional 300 million Ks for the deportation of 58,000 Jews.[96]" really should be part of a later section
    • This is a point raised in a source which is specifically about Aryanization to illustrate how wasteful it was. Therefore, I think it is best to keep it in the Aryanization section. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Jewish Centre. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. buidhe 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lang template the foreign terms
    • Done
  • be consistent in the use of terms, after you introduce the Central Economic Office (ÚHÚ), you use them interchangeably
    • Switched to Central Economic Office consistently
  • "segregated into a labor unit"
    • Done
  • "As the focus shifted" when was this?
    • Clarified
  • "to restricting Jews' civil rights rather than depriving them of their property" would it better to say "after they had been deprived of their property through Aryanization"?
    • Done
  • "Slovak government propaganda"?
    • Done
  • suggest "several camps run by Organization Schmelt, which imprisoned Jews in East Upper Silesia to employ them in forced labor on the Reichsautobahn."
    • Done
  • suggest "the Slovak government acquiesced with the German government decision to deport the 659 Slovak Jews living in the Reich and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" where were they deported to, Slovakia or the General Government?
    • Clarified
  • "the Bishop of Spiš, Ján Vojtaššák,"
    • Done
  • "Except for the Independent State of Croatia"
    • Done
  • German captain link, was this an SS Hauptsturmführer or Wehrmacht? If unsure, perhaps "German officer" would be better
    • Source doesn't specify, so I changed to "officer"
  • suggest "Acting Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich," or "Director of the Reich Main Security Office, Reinhard Heydrich," he was not just an "SS leader"
    • Done
  • suggest linking Lublin District when you first mention Lublin, and use that thereafter
    • Done
  • Giuseppe Burzio→Burzio or "papal chargé d'affaires Burzio" if you feel his role is sufficiently obscure
    • Done
  • "Around 5,000 to 6,000 Jews fled to Hungary to avoid the deportations" is this another lot in addition to the 5,000 to 6,000 Jews mentioned a couple of times earlier?
    • No, the previous emigration ceased in 1941 and these 5,000 to 6,000 fled in 1942.
  • say what Hashomer Hatzair was, ie the Hashomer Hatzair Jewish youth movement"
    • Done
  • "Many owners of Aryanized businesses applied for work exemptions for the Jewish former owners. In some cases this was a fictitious Aryanization; other Aryanizers, motivated by profit, kept the Jewish former owners around for their skills" this repeats information provided earlier
    • No, because it explains how Jews used Aryanization to avoid deportation, which is highlighted in the source and relevant to the section.
  • "Enforcement of anti-Jewish laws lessened" when?
  • when you first mention SS in the body", link Schutzstaffel
    • It already is, earlier where it says " SS officer Dieter Wisliceny".
  • "HSĽS radical Alexander Mach"
    • Done
  • "Slovak bishops issued a pastoral letter" Catholic?
    • I believe the only other bishops operating in Slovakia at the time were Greek Catholic. Both of the sources just say "Slovak bishops".
  • "Germany put increasing pressure on the Slovak State" but wasn't it the Slovak Republic at this point? Maybe just Slovakia?
    • Changed to Slovakia, but I will note that most sources I consulted use the term "Slovak State" for the entire 1939–1945 period.
  • link Communist Party of Slovakia (1939)
    • Done
  • "bringing the total Jewish population to 25,000" in Slovakia?
    • Done

Down to Resumption of deportations (1944–1945), more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! buidhe 06:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pius XII
    • done
  • "but the Slovak exceptionsrequests were not honoredaccepted by the Germans"
    • Done
  • "Anti-Jewish actions were nominally controlled by the Slovak State Ministry of Defense" but wasn't it the Slovak Republic by now?
    • Changed to Slovak Ministry..., but I will note that most sources I consulted use the term "Slovak State" for the entire 1939–1945 period. (see for instance Kamenec's chapter, cited here, "The Slovak state, 1939–1945")
  • "arrived in Slovakia to destroyarrange the deportation of the country's remaining Jews"
    • Done
  • suggest SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Josef Witiska and link
    • Not done, I ended up removing the reference to Witiska as he is never discussed elsewhere in the article.
  • this is out of place, but suggest "the collaborationist Karol Hochberg"
    • Done
  • Einsatzgruppe 13→Einsatzkommando 13, a subunit of Einsatzgruppe H
    • Done—good catch!
  • out of place, but link Žilina at first mention (currently only in a caption)
    • The first reference is to Žilina district (which had significantly different borders to the current Žilina district) and the second to Žilina transit camp, so linked on the third mention
  • "Although most victims were arrested occurred during the first two months of occupation"
    • Done
  • "Einsatzkommando 29, another subunit of Einsatzgruppe H" also perhaps the section link to Einsatzgruppe H should be used for Einsatzkommando 13 too
  • "Einsatzkommando 14, another subunit of Einsatzgruppe H" with section link
    • Edited so that the Einsatzkommandos are mentioned at the first mention of Einsatzgruppe H.
  • "10,000 Jews survived in the annexed territories" Hungarian-annexed?
    • Done
  • "The trials painted Slovak State officials" should this be Slovak Republic?
    • Not done, see above
  • "As of 2019, the Jewish population iswas estimated"
    • Done
  • mention of what happened to Brunner and Witiska and would be a good addition
    • Not done, in both cases this is a bit complicated to explain and would take more space than is WP:DUE. It would also disrupt the flow of the paragraph on trials, as currently it focuses on Slovak trials and how the trials were perceived in Slovak society.
      • Then put it in a separate paragraph. There is absolutely no way on earth that explaining what happened to the main German perpetrators of the Holocaust in Slovakia is undue. Brunner (the architect of the 1944 deportations) and Witiska (the commander of the Einsatzgruppe that led the roundups) are central to the subject of this article. I appreciate that you are keen to emphasise the Slovak contribution, but this is a warstopper for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nationalist Mečiar government in Slovakia" with link to current country article
  • Slovak State→Slovak Republic, there is another example
    • Not done, see above.
  • Jozef Tiso and the Slovak StateRepublic
    • Partly done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • Out of 89,000 Jews in the country Jews here is a MOS:EGG.
    • Changed to avoid
  • 69,000 were murdered in the Holocaust I think we shouldn't link "Holocaust".
  • Slovakia lost significant territory to Hungary Pipe Hungary to the Kingdom of Hungary.
    • done
  • to Auschwitz concentration camp and the Lublin District I believe Auschwitz is too common to link.
    • I disagree.
  • Oh, may I ask you why do you disagree?
  • Even if people know what Auschwitz is they may be looking for more information on it.
  • had adopted Hungarian language and customs I think an article is needed between "adopted" and "Hungarian".
    • Not done; although the Hungarian language is a correct alternative, the Hungarian customs sounds wrong to me.
  • I meant "had adopted Hungarian language and customs" --> "had adopted the Hungarian language and customs" not that.
  • Yes I know but I don't think the suggested wording is an improvement.
  • in the Slovak uplands.[7][6] Re-order the refs.
  • expense of Slovak ambitions.[10][7][11] Same as above.
  • estimated at 135,918 (in 1921).[12][2] Same as above.
  • declare Slovakia's autonomy on 6 October 1938 Year isn't necessary here.
    • Removed
  • southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938 Same as above.
    • Removed
  • In October 1939, Tiso, leader Same as above.
    • Not done, otherwise it isn't clear when this happened.
  • autonomy from Germany;[36][35] Re-order the refs here.
  • The "Overview" isn't really chronologically; it first starts with an event in 1940 and then it continues with an event in 1939?
    • Previous reviewer asked for census information to be moved here. I've separated it into a separate paragraph, but placing it before or after doesn't help because either way it breaks strict chronology.
  • Sounds like it's harder to agree the suggestions and made them a reality.
  • ? I am not sure what you mean.
  • control, in September 1940. [85][88] Remove the unnecessary space here.
    • Done
  • valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941 Wrong symbol of Kčs? Or if does mean something else then what's the meaning of the abbreviation?
    • The Slovak koruna (Ks) is introduced correctly at the beginning of "Aryanization" section.
  • Oh I see. Probably slight my eyes over the sentence where it first was introduced.
  • Arpad Sebestyen as Schwartz' replacement --> "Arpad Sebestyen as Schwartz's replacement"?
    • Done
  • motor vehicles, sports equipment, or radios.[87][75] Re-order the refs here.
  • ordered to leave by 31 December 1941 Year isn't necessary here.
    • Done
  • Defense minister Ferdinand Čatloš and general Jozef Turanec reported massacres --> "Defense minister Ferdinand Čatloš and General Jozef Turanec reported massacres"
    • Done
  • it did not want to be burdened with their families.[135][42] Re-order the refs here.
  • historiographical debate over who proposed the idea.[137][95] Same as above.
  • fee was equivalent to about USD$125 at the time Per MOS:OVERLINK Dollar shouldn't be linked.
    • MOS:OL says nothing about currencies.
  • This says something different.
  • OK, done
  • Auschwitz is overlinked.
    • Only if you think it shouldn't be linked at all.
  • No I thought there was a second linked Auschwitz in the body.
  • 14 organized the deportations,[155][132] while the Slovak Transport Ministry provided the cattle cars.[156][157][146] Re-order the refs here.
  • SS leader Reinhard Heydrich visited Bratislava Introduce SS.
    • Linked on first mention, which is not here.
  • 18 September, no transports departed;[178][177][176] Re-order the refs here.
  • October 1942 before ceasing until 1944.[181][177][176] Same as above.
  • Jews remained after the deportation.[41][185][145] Same as above.
  • would discredit the church.[194][133] Same as above.
  • Many Slovaks opposed the deportations,[99][199][194] Same as above.
  • connection with the halting of deportations.[201][175][202] Same as above.
  • to avoid the deportations,[132][205][93] Same as above.
  • edited records to predate baptisms.[210][196] Same as above.
  • for laborers in the Slovak camps[221][201] and to increase productivity, to strengthen the incentive to keep their workers in Slovakia.[215][222] In 1943, the labor camps earned 39 million Ks for the Slovak State.[223][211][f] Same as above.
  • a German defeat was likely.[231][130] Same as above.
  • organized at Sereď[242][243] and Nováky.[244][243] Same as above.
  • On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia Year isn't necessary here.
  • areas around Banská Bystrica,[241][240] Re-order the refs here.
  • percent of the total insurgent force,[269][240] Same as above.
  • because of the hunger and cold.[275][272] Same as above.
  • also hunted the Jews hiding in the mountains.[281][276] Same as above.
  • Jews were arrested and taken to Sereď.[284][267][285] Same as above.
  • 1944 and 1945, of whom 10,000 died,[250][296][212] Same as above.
  • executions occurred in the Topoľčany district District is part of the proper noun.
  • Holocaust Victims and Racial Hatred Day.[g][338] Re-order the citation and the note.
    • Fixed
  • Catholic and ultranationalist commemorations.[346][52] Re-order the refs.
  • Unlink USD in note B.
    • Per above, it doesn't seem to be covered by MOS:OL.
  • Although the Slovak government encouraged Jews to emigrate, it refused to allow the export of foreign currency, ensuring that most attempts There are here 3 unnecessary spaces.
    • It doesn't affect how the article displays.
  • True unless you try your best to see the differences. Even though you'd probably wouldn't see them.
  • others turned them in to the police You mean "into"?
    • This is correct: turned them in / to the police
  • practice in order to fit in with the Slovak middle class No hyphen in "middle class"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-ordering the refs is optional in my opinion. However I saw a lot of sources using these methode. It also looks nicer and I don't think will harm Wikipedia if the article does. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have strong feelings about it and would never object if someone else reordered them, I just would rather write new articles than make time-consuming but minor fixes. buidhe 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

edit

I plan to review this more thoroughly, but here are a few preliminary comments/questions:

  • I think the map File:Slovakia borderHungary.png could do with a legend in the caption. I find the one in the image description a bit confusing, partly because it's talking about territorial changes before and after the war.
    • I have expanded the caption but a full legend would probably cause the maps to exceed the section, against MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • Is there any way the map File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png could be translated to English? Maybe the folks at WP:WPMAP or the person that created the map could help.
  • The inflation-adjusted figures in the notes are much more precise than the original figures, which are probably rounded. In any case, what years of the Consumer Price Index are you using to adjust those figures for inflation?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you can see by looking at the wikitext, the template converts from 1942 to the last supported year (currently 2019). I have edited to have less precision in the figures. buidhe 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes all look good. I'm starting on my more detailed review:

  • "many Jews had adopted Hungarian language and customs" Like the previous reviewer, this phrasing also stood out to me. Maybe "many Jews spoke Hungarian and adopted Hungarian customs" or simply "many Jews assimilated"?
    • I chose "adopted" because they had previously spoken other languages and had different customs. "Assimilated" raises the question, "assimilated to what?" (Slovak, Hungarian, or even German communities all existed at the time).
  • "The western Jewish communities were affected by rioting" Were they the targets of said rioting? "affected by" sounds a little euphemistic to me.
    • Rewrote
  • "was joined by the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks (economic antisemitism), and "national anti-Semitism"", Is the end there quoting someone specific? If so, I'd suggest naming the person being quoted. If this is a term in general use, I'd suggest removing the quotation marks (and using the spelling "antisemitism" like the rest of the article).
    • Done
  • "to deport impoverished and foreign Jews to the ceded territory" Is this territory ceded to Germany? Hungary?
    • Clarified
  • " in 1940, Jews registered more than 4.322 billion Slovak koruna (Ks) in property" The requirement that Jews declare their property is only mentioned two paragraphs later. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, but when I read this I immediately wondered why this registration took place.
    • I'm not sure what to do either, it's important to attribute where this figure comes from.
  • Yes, I've had another look and couldn't figure out any other way of phrasing or structuring the information here. I guess it's best to just hope readers figure it out once they get to the later paragraph.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The process might more aptly be described as 'Slovakization'" This phrasing sounds a bit like editorializing to me. I would suggest attributing this as an opinion to a source.
    • Reworded
  • "was the appointment of SS officer Dieter Wisliceny as a "Jewish adviser" for Slovakia" Jewish adviser seems like an odd translation of Judenberater to me, since it makes it sound like the adviser is himself Jewish rather than an adviser on questions concerning Jews. That's not what the German term implies Is this translation commonly used? "Adviser on Jewish affairs" or something along those lines would seem like a more natural translation to me.
    • Done
  • "The Catholic Church opposed deportation" Is this referring to the Church in Slovakia or the Church in Rome?
    • Clarified
  • "Many Slovaks opposed the deportations, but this did not translate into action against them" Is there more information on this? Can "many" be made more precise? How do historians know about this opposition?
    • Clarified

I'll stop here for now and continue later. I've done a little copyediting as I went through the article. Please check to make sure I didn't misinterpret anything and revert any changes you disagree with.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'm continuing through the rest of the article in the same vein:
  • The article doesn't explain why deportations stopped in 1943 or why anti-Jewish measures became less strict. Do the sources offer any explanation for this? The same goes for why Slovak politicians refused the German demand for deportations and for the decision to start registering Jews again in January 1944.
  • The article already mentions the most important reasons, namely likelihood of German defeat in the war, increased opposition from the Catholic Church, lack of people that the state was willing to deport.
  • "After the Battle of Stalingrad and other reversals in the increasingly unpopular war in the east" Unpopular in Slovakia? Were Slovakians directly involved in the war?
  • Yes, as stated in "Planning" section: "Slovak soldiers participated in the invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union".
  • "In late 1943, leading army officers and intelligentsia formed the Slovak National Council to plan an insurrection against the regime" Is there any way to briefly summarize the ideology of the Slovak National Council and the resistance groups?
  • Done
  • "many were arrested at the border and deported" Deported back to German-occupied Hungary?
  • Clarified
  • "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece,[291][292] took over the camp's administration at the end of September" Am I right in thinking that before the end of September Sered was run by the Slovak State and it was taken over by the SS at this point? If this is right, maybe it could be explained a little more?
  • Done
  • I'd suggest maybe replacing the File:Nemecka10Slovakia3.JPG photo. To me, the grass in the foreground draws attention away from the memorial itself. There are several photos of the memorial on commons that in my view do a better job of depicting the scene. Even though it's a bit too up-close, I'd consider File:Nemecka10Slovakia5.JPG, but I realize this is more of a question of personal taste.
  • I ended up removing it because it does not do a good job illustrating the subject of the section.
  • "The number of Jewish communities decreased from 126 to 25, while the population decreased by 80 percent" Is this relative to before or after WWII and the Holocaust?
  • Clarified
  • "As of January 2019, Yad Vashem (the official Israeli memorial to the Holocaust) had recognized 602 Slovaks as Righteous Among the Nations for risking their lives to save Jews." I wonder if there might be a better place to put this sentence. The paragraph and section it's currently in don't discuss non-Jewish Slovaks' help for Jews. The last paragraph in the "German invasion" might be a more natural place for the sentence, although it would probably have to rephrased if moved there.
  • The problem with such a placement would be that it would imply that Yad Vashem's statistics are directly related to the actual help given to Jews, which Yad Vashem explicitly denies (they are individual cases and should not be considered a reliable overall picture). Thus, it's more accurately considered a form of commemoration.
  • I mean that the rest of the paragraph is about how the Holocaust was commemorated in Slovakia, whereas that sentence is about how the actions of Slovakians were commemorated by an Israeli institutions.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holocaust relativism in Slovakia tends to manifest as attempts to deflect the blame for the Holocaust onto Germans and Jews" I've changed this sentence a little bit, but I'm still not entirely satisfied and am not entirely sure what to do about it. The issue I have is this: Saying that blame was deflected onto the Germans doesn't seem quite right, since they certainly deserve a lot of it.
  • Right, clarified that their intention is to absolve the wartime Slovak government of all blame.
  • " A 1997 textbook by Milan Stanislav Ďurica and endorsed by the government" Is this a textbook for schools?
  • Clarified
  • This is more of a personal opinion: I'm generally not fond of quote boxes, unless they state something in very memorable terms that can't be integrated into the main prose of the article. I can see the case for including the "Half of Bratislava was on..." quote on those grounds, but I don't really see it for the "Everyone understands that..." quote. I would suggest removing that one, but like I said this just a personal opinion.
  • Integrated the Tardini quote in text
  • Also more of a question of personal opinion: I don't think we should ever include links to google books in articles. We don't need to give free advertising to a company that preys on people's personal data. I understand there is no consensus on this issue and most of the community is probably in favor of google books links.
  • I've only included a very few of these where they can be followed to WP:VERIFY information. I think verifiability is generally placed over these other concerns although I would remove them if there was a general consensus for that.
  • I wrestled with how to express this last point and I'm still not entirely sure. It's about the article's overall tone. This might sound a little weird given Wikipedia's focus on neutrality, but to me the article is almost too neutral in a way. The article mostly focuses on numbers and locations of people deported and murdered, assets seized, institutions involved, etc. I wonder if it would be possible to paint more of a picture of what people went through, the suffering, and so on. To me the article currently reads as rather dry and overly factual. I know this is very tough when it comes to an emotional subject like this one. But I think by adding a few specific examples of what people went through and how they experienced it, this might give readers a fuller picture of what happened, even if those examples are anecdotal rather than representative for the Holocaust in Slovakia as a whole. This might even include the Slovak perpetrators' views of what happened, what they were thinking at the time, or how they later explained or rationalized what they did. I can't give any specific examples of where in the article this might be appropriate or what to add, since I haven't read the sources, but I suspect that the sources would include such examples.
  • I don't know if Wikipedia articles are the right venue for painting a picture of what people went through, which seems difficult to achieve without taking their POV (Actually for this you would be best served by looking at primary sources, memoirs and so forth, scholarly sources tend to be written in a detached style). Although some of the sources do use anecdotes, that's mostly for providing evidence for some point that an author is making. There are some evocative historical photographs that I would have liked to include (for example, [13][14][15][16]), but they are under copyright protection :( buidhe 23:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I disagree a little, but let me clarify what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting extended passages describing what individuals went through. I do think that a comprehensive article should give more than bare facts, figures, dates, etc. It should to some extent paint a picture. I think the quote describing the scene at the deportation in Bratislava is a good example of what I mean. If it accurately describes the situation, it definitely helps the reader form an impression of what those events were like. Ideally I'd like to see just a little more of that and not just in quotes but also in the body of the article, but I won't push this issue.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have for now. I hope my comments help.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking over two weeks to get back to you. I think those two things could still be improved, but other than that I'd like to congratulate you on a well-written article.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for your helpful comments! (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus

edit
  • the term Polish Jews should be linked (on a sidenote, this still doesn't have an article, just a redirect?)
    • Linked
  • Anna Cichopek is linked in text as a redirect to her notable book Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. If she is notable, might as well stub her (also consider whether her name shouldn't be Anna Cichopek-Gajraj) although [17] does not suggest she meets PROF yet, number of citations is low. She has a Wikidata entry already: [18]. Anyway, I am not sure if MoS would suggest delinking her or keeping the redirect?
    • I think this is appropriate, because all the coverage is about one notable book that she wrote. The linked article helps the reader by establishing her qualifications. Once she achieves wikinotability a separate article for her can be created and this link will work directly. I checked the book and it actually uses the long form of her name so I switched to that.

Very nice job overall and I tentatively support this (will try to read in mode depth if I find time in the near future; if I don't comment further treat this as support vote :D).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@FAC coordinators: is it possible for me to nominate another article? buidhe 10:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd be fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PM, Carabinieri, I'm looking at this with a view to promotion but will hold off a short while if you have any last-minute comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely happy with some responses, so I'm not supporting, but am certainly not opposing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the article being promoted.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, can we attribute inline the quotes "agents of magyarization" and "the most powerful prop to the [Hungarian] ruling classes", especially given they could could come from any of three sources cited? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia/archive2&oldid=1141922438"