Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Partisan Congress riots

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Partisan Congress riots

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Partisan Congress riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia. It's a bit off the beat but I believe it is in scope as it was primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. The article just received an excellent copyedit from Gog the Mild, whom I can't thank enough for his help, but I'm not quite brave enough to jump straight to FAC. Any comments more than welcome! buidhe 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I have just looked at this for GOCE, and I had an eye on it progressing. I will have a look at it shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read/skimmed through this again, I can see no issues - all of those I picked up during the copy edit have been satisfactorily addressed. The criteria all seem to be met and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Good stuff. All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I know there is no requirement to do so, but is there a reason this hasn't been put through GAN? I have a few comments:

    • I just thought that the article was likely to languish for months at GAN, considering the backlog at the time.
  • wasn't it Czechoslovakia rather than Slovakia in 1946?
    • There was no significant anti-Jewish violence in the Czech lands, so there isn't an article on it; also, Slovakia was an autonomous area and its government made most of the relevant decisions. My usage follows Cichopek who states, "Although Slovakia was reunited with the Czech lands after the war, it retained a large degree of autonomy until 1949. In this book, I use 'Slovakia' when speaking of issues relevant only to this region and 'Czechoslovakia' when discussing the entire country after the war." (3) I added more info on the postwar political situation in the Background section.
      • But it wasn't a separate country, so it needs to placed into its geo-political context. Suggest the first sentence is amended to read "The Partisan Congress riots were attacks on Jews in Bratislava and other cities and towns within the autonomous Slovakia region of Czechoslovakia between 1 and 6 August 1946, as part of the anti-Jewish violence in postwar Slovakia" and add a link to the autonomous Slovakia that is being referred to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that the first sentence of the lede is the place to go into detail on the constitutional status of postwar Slovakia, but I have tweaked the lead to make it clear that the sovereign state is Czechoslovakia. buidhe 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It absolutely is. The problem with the current formulation is that Slovakia was a subdivision of Czechoslovakia, and when you start talking about Slovak cities and towns in the first sentence and then go on to use Slovak elsewhere in the lead, it begs the question of what you are talking about, ethnic Slovak cities or within a Slovak geopolitical entity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link antisemitic
    • done
  • "A national conference" was it national though? Were there Czechs involved as well? perhaps use congress rather than conference throughout to avoid any possible confusion
    • Changed to "congress" throughout. "Celoslovenský" literally translates as all + Slovak, the Czech partisans had a separate organization. However, after the war Czechs and Slovaks were percieved as separate nations
  • weren't the Hlinka Guard also involved in the burning of villages along with Einsatzgruppe H? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Background section, some mention needs to be made of Czechoslovakia being reinstituted after the war and that there was a Slovak sub-division
    • Done
  • for Agrarian, link Republican Party of Farmers and Peasants or Agrarianism
    • Done
  • drop the cap on Communists
    • I left the capitalization and linked Communist Party of Slovakia (1939), because I think the author is referring to members of that political party.
  • Slovaks is used to describe the people throughout, but of course these people were Czechoslovaks, and some of the people in what had been the Slovak State were not ethnic Slovaks at all, but Hungarians and other minorities. This grates and seems ahistorical and exclusive of others living in this part of Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this is just a lack of knowledge about the internal divisions within Czechoslovakia, but if there was a formal division between Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia in 1946 (indicated by the reference to the autonomous Slovak government, then this should be introduced early in the article.
    • Where "Slovaks" are discussed in the Background section, it follows the sources and refers to ethnic Slovaks, not Hungarians or other minority groups. The rest of the article avoids ethnic references. I'm well aware that Czechoslovakia was a multiethnic state, but in this case the incidents were caused mostly by ethnic Slovaks and not Hungarians, as discussed in the media coverage section.
  • Topoľčany pogrom is duplinked, as is Slovak in the lang templates
    • The first time Topoľčany pogrom is linked it could be missed by readers, so I think the second link is helpful. Edited the lang template to fix the other duplink.
  • "government passed the Restitution Act"
    • Done
  • "or national administrators, many of whom were former partisans or other resistance members" this has already been explained
    • Done
  • drop the comma from "mostly unsuccessful, attempts"
    • Done
  • First National Congress of Partisans and Partisan Congress should not be bolded, per MOS:BOLD
    • Done
  • first name for Masariak?
    • Not stated in the source or any other I can find.
  • drop the parens from "(Previous to that,...)"
    • Done
  • link hand grenade (did these explode?)
    • Done, not stated in source
  • 1:30 in the morning→01:30 on 3 August, given you are using 24 hour clock
    • Done
  • this last sentence is really about 3 August, so should probably be moved to the 3 August section
    • Done
  • contigents→contingents
    • Fixed
  • "former Slovak People's Party regime", I assume it had been disestablished by this point?
    • Added
  • did these anti-Jewish attacks occur elsewhere in Czechoslovakia?
    • There were no significant anti-Jewish attacks in the Czech lands.
  • On 6 August 1946, the Slovak News Agency
    • Done
  • The Czech News Agency reported the riots
    • Done
  • who is Mlynárik? author? historian? First name?
  • suggest using Council of Jewish Religious Communities in Bohemia and Moravia each time instead of just "Council"
    • Done
  • suggest "destroyed during the uprisingSlovak National Uprising"
    • Done
  • passersby
    • Done
  • is there a reason why Šmigeľ (2017) hasn't been used in the article?
    • It doesn't have any information that's not in his 2011 essay. Also, I suspect it is a predatory open access journal. However, since the Slovak print source is difficult to track down it helps with verifying some of his statements.

That's all I have. Great job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of my comments have been adequately addressed and I have a related underlying concern about POV. Frankly, the seeming reluctance to acknowledge clearly in the first sentence that this occurred in a country called Czechoslovakia strikes me as really odd. Slovakia was not a country in 1946, it was a political unit of Czechoslovakia. To not acknowledge the contemporary geopolitics and clearly place this in its historical context is frankly recentist and ahistorical, as is the use of the term Slovaks and Slovak without linking that to the ethnicity (in fact linking is inexplicably avoided in both the lead and the body), and instead giving the impression throughout that it was a nationality at the time. The same goes for referring to Slovak cities and towns when there were non-Slovaks living in these lands. As it is now, unless they read the note (which is frankly highly undesirable in a lead, especially when it downplays an important piece of context), the reader would be confused wondering why the Czechoslovak police were even involved when reading the lead, as they would be under the impression that this occurred in a country called Slovakia. The whole article is written this way, except for a few minor acknowledgements. It is frankly POV in my view, and I won't be supporting promotion until it is resolved. I would also add that an additional sentence or two (beyond the single sentence about economic antisemitism) about the history of anti-Semitism amongst ethnic Slovaks (assuming the perpetrators of these riots were all ethnic Slovaks) prior to WWII is a necessary addition, given neither of the articles in the main template adequately discusses that aspect. Also delegetes→delegates, and Czechia needs a link. And the quote boxes give undue weight to state propaganda which is refuted by the body of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fair point about the quoteboxes, which have been removed. All of the sources say Slovaks, Slovakia and emphasize the role of the Bratislava government. Maybe that is ahistorical and POV of them, but I don't see what I can do about that. I've rewritten the first sentence of the article and linked "Czechia" and "Slovaks" as you think it would be helpful. Although none of the sources mention pre-1938/1939 events as a relevant aspect of the background or causes of the riots, it might be worthwile to add for context. I'll see what I can do about that. buidhe 02:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've had a go at adding more some background on the history of Jews in Bratislava, let me know what you think. buidhe 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM, just a little reminder to both of you. How's the progress? It looks like Buidhe has addressed your reply above me. Could you have look at whether all of your comments are addressed or not? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now. Move the link to Slovaks up to "poor Slovaks", but no reason not to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review! I've done as you suggested. buidhe 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vanamonde93

edit

Not really in my wheelhouse, but happy to give this a read. Feel free to revert any copy-editing I do.

  • I find the first sentence difficult to parse; there's a lot thrown in there. Could you break it up?
    • Done
  • "Aryanization" may have been linked, but is a concept crucial enough to the article that I wonder if a one-sentence explanation in the lead is worthwhile.
    • Done
  • "Rioting began on 1 August" do we know where it began, and what the targets were?
    • Expanded on this
  • " Unusually, the Slovak State organized the deportation" why was this unusual?
    • Cichopek notes that the Slovak State was one of the only countries that organized the deportation rather than it being organized by German forces. However, it's not super relevant so I deleted it
  • The sentence beginning "Anti-regime forces" strikes me as out of place
    • I think it's relevant because these are the partisans which are causing the rioting
      • I could have been clearer; it belongs in the article, but feels out of place where it is. Perhaps it could be moved to just after "sparking the Slovak National Uprising".
  • "between Jews and Slovaks" but the Jews were Slovaks too, in many cases, were they not? you've used "non-Jewish SLovaks" in the lead
    • Done
  • The distinction between "background" and "leadup" isn't very clear to me at the moment; certainly there's material about broad post-war phenomena in both sections.
    • I separated them because the leadup is the events that RS say led directly to this particular outbreak of violence, rather than the causes of Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia more generally.
      • Hmm...In that case I'd suggest retitling it "proximate causes" or some such, but that's a suggestion only.
  • The second paragraph of "lead up" may benefit from a slight chronological reorganization.
    • I found it more helpful to separate incitement from physical attacks.
  • "soldiers, officers, and civilians" soldiers of the Czechoslovak army? If so, might be worth specifying.
    • Presumably but the source doesn't say so explicitly, so want to avoid OR.
  • There's many uses of "reportedly" in the article; and it's often not clear whether you mean media reports, or intelligence reports, or whether the sources themselves don't know. If it's the latter there's not much to be done, but if the former, some clarification may be helpful.
    • Usually these are police reports, which are presumably written from eyewitness testimony and are the main source of info cited in the papers.
  • "Other Jews were beaten or stabbed in the streets" it isn't obvious whether this is still in Nové Zámky
    • Clarified
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 01:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link restitution, or some more specific term? It's not everyday vocabulary outside academia and law, I don't think.
    • Done
  • "non-Communist Democratic Party" why is this adjective here? I don't see it used elsewhere...is there reason to think the Democratic party would be communist?
  • This brings me to another point; I think it is helpful, whenever a political party is introduced, to have a descriptor of their ideology there, too; otherwise they're just names. I'd suggest whatever descriptor is most frequently used by the sources.
    • After 1945 there were only two legal political political parties in Slovakia: the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. So most sources describe the former as a "non-Communist party" since it contained all legal non-Communist politics.
  • "published an article on the events on 11 August" implication that the riots took place on 11 August, which as far as I can tell isn't what you mean
    • Fixed

That wraps it up from me; happy to support, as none of the rest of the comments are deal breakers. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
Yes, I checked the link. Ho, hum.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Partisan_Congress_riots&oldid=964587477"