Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential exemption for Jews

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Presidential exemption for Jews

(

)

~~... that Slovak nationalists claim that Jozef Tiso "saved" as many as 40,000 Jews from his own regime?~~ [1]

Reviewed: Max Troll
Comment: Review under my previous username, Catrìona

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Oppose the hook: not directly supported neither by the article text nor by the footnote here (which should not be in the hook). Also, the hook must be in WP:NPOV format: no "scary quotes", nor opinions of a particular side. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Staszek Lem, Nonsense. NPOV does not mean that giving legitimacy to WP:FRINGE views. Giving refs that are offline is not much use to reviewers, but they're cited in text. And how does "Milan Stanislav Ďurica and other Slovak nationalists that Tiso saved as many as 40,000 Jews from his regime's own antisemitic policies"—cited to two academic, peer-reviewed sources—not support the hook? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 01:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  - For the sake of specific discussion, please provide the quotes from refs that directly (may be slightly rephrased) support your hook, not the refs from which the hook can be derived by a wikipedian. BTW your phrase "NPOV does not mean that giving legitimacy to WP:FRINGE views" makes no sense. Probably grammar. The ref you cited in the hook is not in the text. And do not put ext links in the hook text: it is supposed to be copied into DYK template. Staszek Lem (talk)

Quotes as requested:

...estimates of how many Jews were thus saved from deportation include:... 30,000-40,000 (Milan S. Durica, The Slovak Involvement in the Tragedy of the European Jews [Abano Terme, Italy: Piovan Editore, 1989], p. 12) Ward (2002, p. 593)

Despite the best efforts of leading Slovak historians to lay this numbers dispute to rest, the controversy remains a durable feature of Slovak social and political discourse. It continues to distract many Slovaks from coming to terms with the legacy of collaboration and thus sustains Slovak ultranationalists in their campaign to rehabilitate Tiso and the wartime Slovak state. Ward (2002, pp. 571–572)

In particular, there are already attempts to shift the wartime Slovak president Jozef Tiso (who needs to be held accountable for his actions) from the perpetrator to the rescuer category, since he issued about one thousand presidential exemptions from deportations. Paulovičová (2012, pp. 71–72)

This right-wing national myth is backed up by the historically rooted fact that the president possessed the right to exempt the persecuted Jews from deportation. Although such an option did indeed exist, the number of presidential exemptions has been inflated in order to add an aura of innocence and glory to president-priest Jozef Tiso. According to Milan S. Ďurica, Jozef Tiso and many government members were trying to change the impact of the imfamous Jewish Code and rescue “as many Jews as possible.” In his view, the lack of consensus within the government as well as a lack of understanding and cooperation of Jews with the Slovak government (!) led to the failure of Slovaks to withstand the pressure of Germans, who were responsible for the Holocaust in Slovakia. Liberal historian Ivan Kamenec decisively refutes this myth and offers a more balanced view on the issue of presidential exemptions. According to Kamenec, Tiso’s office had received about 20,000 requests for presidential exemptions from the Jewish Code, but granted only a thousand exemptions, which altogether allowed for the protection of 5000-6000 Jews. Paulovičová (2012, p. 27)

Scholars don't view this as a legitimate debate, but rather a politically motivated attempt to rehabilitate the Tiso regime. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(1) In other words, Tiso did save several thousand Jews, with exact numbers contested. (2) The article is about Tiso's decree not about Slovak nationalists. These may claim 200,000 saved, but fringe views cannot be the hook of WP:DYK. (Not to say that the article says the " controversial textbook" .. ."later retracted", so nothing to speak about at all) (3) The hook does not reflect the article adequately. The main issue not not what fringe nationalists say, but that Tiso's decree was far from being Jew-saving. Please think of a better hook. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Something like:

ALT1:... that Slovak presidential exemptions did little to save Slovak Jews from the Holocaust? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK hooks routinely deal with peripheral facts and are still acceptable as long as the fact in question is true. Your proposed hook is not interesting because it is widely known that most Jews in Europe were murdered and only a few managed to escape. The discrepancy in figures is that Kamenec's include all exemptions issued while Ward is only counting those issued before October 1942, when the deportations were halted. (Exemptions issued after that did not save their holders from death). I am not sure where you are getting the 200,000 figure from, there were only 89,000 Jews in Slovakia. However, perhaps a more hooky way to present this might be
ALT2:... that Slovak nationalists have exaggerated the number of presidential exemptions issued in order to minimize the complicity of Jozef Tiso for the Holocaust in Slovakia?
Oppose alt2 in favor of alt1: Same problem: alt1 is about exemptions, alt2 is about nationalists: once again: fringe views should not have prominence in wikipedia in any form. Also, wikipedia is not a place to combat nationalists and other bad people. It is a historical fact that exemptions were a sham. Period. We dont care what nationalists say. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to request a new reviewer because I feel that Staszek Lem is applying his own preferences, rather than the DYK criteria. In addition, he has wrongly inserted cleanup tags into the article and repeatedly moved it to an incorrect name. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. My "oppose" vote at the very top is strictly according to DYK rules. Let me repeat it in an itemized format:

The hook in non-neutral because it is an opinion, and of a fringe opinion, too.
not addressed at all
The hook is false; at the very least it has no direct support by refs
The wall of the quoted text shows that the nom has to peruse WP:SYNTH policy. I am sorry to remind an editor since 2012 about it.

The rest of my comments are more detailed explanations of my reasoning. Did not help, sorry for my English.

As for the rest of false accusations:

The editors should not remove cleanup tags without addressing the issue raised
Disputes about page names is a normal editing process. BTW the original article title was "Presidential exemption" (I have already written a reasonable stub). In the future the article creator better do some googling; often one will be surprised.

I wasted my time to read around the subject and suggested ALT1 hook which covers the controversy with the exemptions, stated in the form of a fact assumed by mainstream, rather than in the form of a fringe view.

That said, I don't mind third opinion, but whatever it will be, my objections must be addressed. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If I may budge in. @Staszek Lem: WADR I think you are wrong with the assumption that a hook should not present fringe opinions; as long as those fringe ideas are attributed and it is clear from the context that they are opinions, and evidently as long as the article itself is neutral, this is not actually an issue. Hooks are meant to draw readers in, and usually this is done by focusing on some unusual fact, which fringe opinions are, by definition. I will add that I don't see ay evidence of WP:SYNTH, neither in how the article was written nor in how the hook is presented. @Buidhe: WADR I think the hook is wrong in not clearly attributing the opinion to some Slovak nationalists, something which the article does in fact do. It is perfectly conceivable that other Slovak nationalists may not share this stance, not any particular desire to rehabilitate Tiso. The very source you quote suggests that opposition to Tiso from within nationalist ranks began during and because of the deportations, even by some who had reaped the benefits of antisemitic persecution; it also clearly mentions that die-hard Tiso fans are on the "fringes of society"; and also indicates that the Slovak nationalist Fico was behind the initiative to commemorate the Holocaust in Slovakia.
I'm not sure which title is "correct", they both appear quite similar. The objection that "for Jews" is a misnomer seems weak. since even those Christians spared by the exception were identified as Jews (right?). There is also absoltely nothing wrong with "Presidential exception (Holocaust)". If you can't decide, why not go for something along rthe lines of Presidential exception (Tiso)? Dahn (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dahn: I don't object to any of the proposed disambiguators. My main objection to "Presidential exemptions for Jews" is that this nomenclature isn't in any of the sources. Yes, "Slovak nationalists" is probably too broad as a category. How about "Slovak ultranationalists" (per source above)? b uidhe 13:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  - ALT3:... that Slovak ultranationalists claim that Jozef Tiso "rescued" as many as 40,000 Jews from his own regime's antisemitic policies?
  - ALT4:... that Slovak ultranationalists have exaggerated the number of presidential exemptions issued, in order to minimize the complicity of Jozef Tiso for the Holocaust in Slovakia?
    - @Buidhe: Before reviewing further, I'm going to give Staszek the opportunity to weigh in as well; it seems like we already have a compromise on the article name. For now, I note that there might be some issue with the new alts, since "ultranationalists" is more precise than the source: I actually believe that "that some Slovak nationalists" closely mirrors the language of the source/s. Also, I think you need a comma between "issued" and "in" in ALT4, because otherwise it reads like the exceptions were issued by someone with the goal of minimizing Tiso's complicity. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
      - I'm OK with the "some nationalists" wording; I think both would be fine. I would note that "ultranationalists" is based directly on one of the sources: "this numbers dispute... sustains Slovak ultranationalists in their campaign to rehabilitate Tiso and the wartime Slovak state". It also depicts the fringe nature of this campaign better than "some nationalists". Comma added. b uidhe 14:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
        Ah yes, Ward does use the term, my bad. I had only looked for wording in the Kamenec interview, which is the prime source you indicated here. Yes, either works. I presume "ultranationalists" conveys the meaning better and would also address Staszek's comments about the fringe nature of the opinion. (The article on Milan Stanislav Ďurica also clarifies that the epithet was used for him as well, though he is not mentioned here in the hook and this should not therefore be a BLP redflag.) Dahn (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
        
        @Buidhe: I've expanded the lead and had a look over sources in the process. There are several small issues I noticed. One is that the citation and the fact do not actually appear in the article, which does not mention Slovak ultranationalists other than Ďurica (neither is the source you cite for the hook cited for that fact in the article, which presents another technical issue). So, as we stand, the hook is technically illegible; this could easily be fixed by adding more from the Kamenec interview, which does expand on this topic. I also noticed that, while 1,000 exemptions were granted (or 1,100 to be precise), they benefited some 5,000 people (per Kamenec). That's because, as the article indicates, an exemption nominally protected a person and their family as well. The article currently says 1,000 Jews were subject to it ("of whom 1,000 were protected by presidential exemptions"). I'm not sure if there is an actual disagreement in the sources, or if what they actually say, all of them, is that there were 1,000 exemptions for 1,000+ people. Please check and rewrite accordingly: either to say that the actual number was higher, or to introduce the higher estimate in the Kamenec interview. Dahn (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dahn: The problem is that these estimates are taken at different times. Ward is only counting those issued before October 1942, when deportations from Slovakia were halted. His reasoning is that the exemptions issued later were irrelevant, because they did not save the holder's life (when the Germans invaded Slovakia in 1944, they did not respect any of the exemptions). Whereas, Kamenec is counting the total number issued—including the exemptions issued after October 1942. Regardless, I've added clarification of this issue. b uidhe 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ support of Alt 4. However its phrasing does not make the article subject clear. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- ALT4a:... that Slovak ultranationalists exaggerate the number of presidential exemptions granted for Jews, to minimize the complicity of Jozef Tiso for the Holocaust in Slovakia?
  - That's also a fine proposal, Staszek Lem (talk · contribs). However, I wish to remind both you and Buidhe (talk · contribs) that these generic hooks about ultranationalists need to be better cited in the text, preferably with an exact quote using the exact term "ultranationalist/s". As we stand, the relevant section only refers to one controversial historian and other "Slovak nationalists", as well as a since-retracted textbook. While it is clear to me that the sources do support more generic affirmations, we need to show this to the reader, otherwise it reads like an editorial comment from us. Please consider expanding on that notion by adding more details, with more quotes, and the hooks will be verifiable. This also has intrinsic merits, because I think readers will beneifir from understanding more about the controversy. It will also allow anyone to understand just how fringe Tiso revivalists are -- this is a much better approach than trying to conceal the controversy altogether because it is fringe. Dahn (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    - The problem is that, as far as I can tell, none of the source actually describe this campaign as "fringe". (In the interview, Kamenec is talking about skinheads–something entirely different). It may not be all that fringe given that Slovak TV recently nominated Tiso for "Greatest Slovak" [2] (which, to be fair, was widely criticized and withdrawn). However, I've added a reference to "ultranationalists" and a sentence stating that "this campaign had little relevance to the majority of Slovaks, and, according to a 2005 opinion poll, only 5% of Slovaks viewed Tiso "very favorably".". b uidhe 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      - We do not need sources to consider something "fringe" fur the purpose of editorial decisions. Still, I gave it a thought and now tend to agree that readers do deserve to be informed about fringe but visible things. Just look at what happened in the Ukraine. Fringe neonazis gained power and now World War II criminal orhanization who murdered Poles and Jews left and right are national heroes now. Modern ultranazis became Heroes of Ukraine because they fought in Donbass (may be rightly so) but their photos wearing Nazi symbols were seen durin UN and EU exhibitions, one wounded neonazi was medically treated in Germany and was caught on video throwing Hitler salute. The West is keeping a blind eye on what is going on in Ukraine because is is a good opportunity to squeeze on Russia but was ridiculously angry with the Polish law which outlawed propaganda of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators currently going on in Ukraine. In other words, ultranazi fringe suddenly became mainstream in one country and tolerable to the West due to convenience. Just as it happened with Hitler. Pardon my "ad hitlerum" argument, but the analogy is direct, both in Slovakia and Ukraine. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
        We're getting past the point here, but thank you for addressing my concerns. For the full review: New, long, neutral and properly sourced, with no grammatical errors and no plagiarism. Verified for all hooks, preference given to ALT 4 (could be condensed, though). QPQ done, good to go. Dahn (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

- - - - What are the drawbacks of ALT4a? It is both condensed and more precise. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
        No prejudice against it either, all hooks are the same from a factual perspective. In any case, the selection will be made by editors who work on the queue prep, and they analyze all options and sometimes also slightly rephrase the hook they pick. So preference expressed is just a formality. Dahn (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)