[go: nahoru, domu]

Talk:Giado concentration camp

Latest comment: 17 days ago by Zanahary in topic POV issues

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Giado concentration camp in Libya's Nafusa Mountains 
The Giado concentration camp in Libya's Nafusa Mountains
  • ... that Libyan Jews and Arabs traded and bartered with each other at the fence of the Giado concentration camp (pictured)? Source: Hoppe, Jens (2018). "The Persecution of Jews in Libya Between 1938 and 1945". In Boum, Aomar; Abrevaya Stein, Sarah (eds.). The Holocaust and North Africa. De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9781503607064-003
  • ALT1: ... that prisoners at the Giado concentration camp (pictured) in Libya made a makeshift synagogue in one of their barracks?
Created by Zanahary (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Zanahary 06:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes 
  • Interesting: Yes 
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   The article is eligible for a copyright violation, therefore instantly making it ineligible for DYK, a large amount of direct paraphrasing is stated in the blockquotes, (I suggest changing the wording). TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the blockquotes? Those are directly quoted (non-paraphrased) survivor testimony. Are they excessive? Zanahary 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about my mistake, I accepted it, I could not read WP:BLOCKQUOTE.TheNuggeteer (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

POV issues

edit

There is no way this camp is "considered a death camp" by Holocaust scholars. That term has a specific definition and is only applied to a small subset of camps with a far higher death toll than this one.

In fact there are other POV issues with the article, as it takes for granted that Libya was included in the holocaust. Yet this is a minority view among scholars.[1] You participated in that discussion on a related page, so I'm confused why the error didn't get corrected here.

"Forced labor concentration camp" is a redundant and misleading terminology, as this camp was NOT part of the Nazi concentration camp system. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Buidhe. Did you mean to tag me or someone else? You refer to a “you”, but the Talk page you link is not one I remember ever commenting on—did you mean to link to Talk:The Holocaust in Libya?
The death camp statement is cited, but maybe it ought to be attributed.
Where in this article’s text does it take for granted that Libya was included in the holocaust?
Giado is described as a concentration camp in just about every source. I don’t think straying from the sources on that would be prudent. Zanahary 01:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're putting this up for GAN so I would expect you to address any POV or other disqualifying issues brought up in the talk page.
Just because something is verifiable does not mean it is not WP:FRINGE or becomes WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. All you have here is one non-notable author who published this claim in a dubious journal, no evidence anyone else thinks this. No, it should not be included, and I would not cite that source at all. Overall, the sources could use more critical evaluation for reliability. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's one thing to cite a few news articles for the legacy section but there's no way that sources like Israel Hayom should be used for historical information. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gotcha on the death camp source. I'll take another look at it.
The Israel Hayom source in the Liberation and aftermath section is an editorial by the grandson of Frederick Kisch. It's used to support that Kisch was the general of the liberating forces. Is that not acceptable?
Also, do you maintain that this article takes for granted that Libya was included in the Holocaust? Because I still don't understand that characterization. Zanahary 02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I maintain that the sources cited don't have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" for historical events. There are a number of decent sources on this topic and if the fact isn't covered by any of them, I would question why it's relevant to mention.
The article says, "In 2002, following the 1997 publication of a study by Dr. Irit Abramski-Bligh on the history of the Libyan and Tunisian Jewish communities during the Holocaust" (t · c) buidhe 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That’s cited to Haaretz, if I’m not mistaken, which is quite reliable. Zanahary 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It shouldn't be stated in wiki voice unless it's not significantly disputed by reliable sources, which is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which reliable sources dispute that the decision followed Abramski-Bligh’s study? Zanahary 22:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, do you mean that that quote states that the Holocaust extended to Libya and Tunisia? Because I disagree—her study covered the history of those communities while the Holocaust occurred. How do you propose it be worded? Zanahary 22:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the source (two passages)
The turning point in the attitude toward North African Jewry came in 1997, when Abramski-Bligh published her study of the Libyan and Tunisian communities during the Holocaust as part of Yad Vashem's Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities (Pinkas Hakehilot)…
Another important consequence of Abramski-Bligh's study was the recognition of survivors from the Giado camp as Holocaust survivors who are eligible to receive compensation from the fund the German government set up for Nazi-era forced laborers.
To describe the study as being one of Libyan and Tunisian communities during the Holocaust does not implicitly comment on the breadth of the Holocaust into North Africa. It’s just what the study is about. Zanahary 03:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It assumes that the Holocaust included Libya and Tunisia, which is a minority view overall. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t agree that it does—not even the study apparently does, since “the Holocaust” can be treated as a period of time—but our accurately describing the study as being of these communities during the Holocaust (with the topic of a study being defined by its author and abstract) does not transitively imply anything implied by the study’s self-description, anyways.
Do you have an alternative wording you’d like to propose? Zanahary 15:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any wording that fixes the problem I identified which could be done most simply by not using the word "Holocaust". (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I still don’t agree that the article prose is problematic or states in wikivoice that the Holocaust extended to Libya and Tunisia. Let me know if you are able to come up with a wording you prefer, and I’ll be happy to discuss. Zanahary 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note to any prospective GA reviewer: Sourcing issues with this article have NOT been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not a GAN. Please clarify the remaining sourcing issues, since I believe I resolved the two you raised (removed the death camp claim and supported the Hayom assertion with a better source), and would appreciate knowing if there are any more that need resolution. Zanahary 17:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ping @Buidhe Zanahary 03:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, besides the fact that you haven't fixed some of the issues I identified above, the article still has significant sourcing problems, such as {not exhaustive):
  • Survivor statement sourced to "זוכרים לדורות: תיעוד ניצולי שואה תושבי רעננה[Remembered for Generations: Documentation of Holocaust survivors living in Ra'anana] (in Hebrew). Municipality of Ra'anana, Department of Social Services. 2012. p. 232." Not WP:DUE
  • What makes Diarna.org a reliable source for this topic?
  • News organizations don't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy for historical events and some of those you cite arguably don't meet wp:rs even for contemporary topics (like Israel Hayom)
  • You should not be citing block quotes from individuals, this is almost always wp:undue. If your text is saying "one survivor said..." "one survivor said..." this is an indication that it is straying from an encyclopedic summary
  • Statements like "Over 500 died in three months" need especially good sources. If this isn't in the scholarly sources you cite, maybe it isn't accurate.
  • Don't cite interviews—They can only give one person's perspective and don't show wp:due
  • My web browser won't even visit one of the sources, https://www.jwmww2.org/soldier.aspx?id=2720
I would only cite scholarly sources for all information except possibly some details in the legacy section.
Citations need cleanup, for example (not exhaustive):
  • Helman, Anat, ed. (2021). No small matter: features of Jewish childhood. Studies in contemporary jewry (1 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-757730-1.
  • "ITALIAN-OCCUPIED NORTH AFRICA". The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany. Indiana University Press. 2018. pp. 527–530. doi:10.2307/j.ctt22zmbr7. ISBN 978-0-253-02373-5. JSTOR j.ctt22zmbr7.
Both of these needs to state who the author of the cited section is and what the title of that section is (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for this.
Well, besides the fact that you haven't fixed some of the issues I identified above
Can you please be specific about these? It would be helpful to just have a complete list of feedback items. Zanahary 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Cockerill, Matthew Ghobrial (2 April 2024). "Did the Nazis plan to extend the final solution beyond Europe? Assessing the evidence". Holocaust Studies: 1–24. doi:10.1080/17504902.2024.2326262.