Vice regent (talk | contribs) |
Brigade Piron (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::That sounds like you're doing [[WP:SYNTH]]. I'm evaluating sources based on how other scholars evaluate them, rather then doing [[WP:Original research]] for myself and see which scholar is right. At this point, I'm not seeing evidence that Shaw's views are so [[WP:FRINGE]] that they can't be included in this article. At best, his views can be treated as minority and given lesser [[WP:WEIGHT]] than other scholars.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|<b style="color:Black">talk</b>]]</sub> 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
::That sounds like you're doing [[WP:SYNTH]]. I'm evaluating sources based on how other scholars evaluate them, rather then doing [[WP:Original research]] for myself and see which scholar is right. At this point, I'm not seeing evidence that Shaw's views are so [[WP:FRINGE]] that they can't be included in this article. At best, his views can be treated as minority and given lesser [[WP:WEIGHT]] than other scholars.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|<b style="color:Black">talk</b>]]</sub> 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Err, we do not give equal weight to facts and falsehoods. The issue isn't about Shaw's opinions but actual fabricated information in his books. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
:::Err, we do not give equal weight to facts and falsehoods. The issue isn't about Shaw's opinions but actual fabricated information in his books. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::I've been asked to weigh in. I must admit that I agree with Buidhe on this point. Shaw is already mentioned in the "commemoration" section - it is not like his book is otherwise entirely omitted. At the same time, we must accept that scholarly consensus changes over time and does so relatively quickly in a field such as Holocaust studies where there are a large number of writers and scholarly accuracy is considered particularly important. From the scholarship today as I understand it, it ''is'' [[WP:FRINGE]] now even if it was not 20 years ago. Are there not more productive ways in which this article could be expanded? 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Evaluating Turkey vs other countries == |
== Evaluating Turkey vs other countries == |
Revision as of 16:25, 15 January 2021
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- ... that Turkey has used Holocaust commemoration to deny both the Armenian Genocide and antisemitism in Turkey? Source: Quotes from Turkish officials: "In our history, there does not exist any genocide." "Turkish society has always been away from anti-Semitic feelings [sic], has never shown any feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Our people has [sic] always embraced their Jewish brothers." https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsocf.12521
Analysis by Baer: Beginning in 2014, Turkish Jewish community leaders have been joined in their annual Holocaust commemoration by high-ranking Turkish officials who have used the occasion each year to promote the image of Turks as rescuers of Jews, from 1492 through to World War II. Playing the part of Jewish savior against the tide of genocide, the Turkish government can vaunt its pride and claim never to have engaged in such historical crimes, thereby denying, sometimes obliquely, sometimes explicitly, the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians. — Baer 2020 p. 207
"A second theme, unique to the Turkish case, is the determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust." https://pen.org/professional-ethics-and-the-denial-of-armenian-genocide/
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC).
- buidhe This does not look like a neutral hook. Many hooks can be made on this article that are both interesting and neutral.VR talk 03:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for hooks to follow NPOV. See WP:DYKRULES. It is factual and sourced to RS which is what matters. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you go to WP:DYKRULES and look under "Content", it says
The hook should be neutral
.VR talk 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- How is it non-neutral? It is just a fact. One that doesn't reflect well on Turkey, but many hooks don't reflect well on their subjects and have always been allowed on DYK. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Now that's a tricky one. I understand the NPOV concern and believe Vice regent is right about pointing to the DYK rules; but on the other hand after reading the article I believe the statement in the hook is correct, Turkey seems to do that (at least according to the sources in the article). So I would personally have difficulties wording the hook another way to present Turkey in a better light. @Vice regent could you maybe think of an example alternate hook that would satisfy NPOV for you? (Caveat: I am really not an expert on the subject, just a random Wikipedian chiming in.) --LordPeterII (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you go to WP:DYKRULES and look under "Content", it says
- My previous hooks have often portrayed various institutions, people, or countries in a negative light. Just a few examples,
- "that memorial director Jens-Christian Wagner blames Alternative for Germany for the increase in heckling at former Nazi concentration camps in recent years?"[1]
- "that in September 2019, far-right politician Milan Mazurek became the first Slovak parliamentarian to lose his seat due to a crime after comparing Romani children to "animals in the zoo"?"[2]
- "that after the Greek Civil War, 20,000 leftists were exiled to Gyaros (pictured), dubbed "Dachau of the Mediterranean"?"[3]
- "... that the European Commission of Human Rights found in 1969 that the Greek junta systematically tortured dissidents, leading to Greece's exit from the Council of Europe?"[4]
- " ... that the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law was intended to punish Holocaust survivors rather than Holocaust perpetrators?"[5]
- "that death squad commander Otto Ohlendorf claimed that the extermination of 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children was a justified act of self-defense?"[6]
- Generally, the only negative hooks that were rejected were for BLP reasons. I don't really see NPOV as something that occurs in isolation for one fact or sentence, rather for an article as a whole, but I proposed hook ALT0 as I found it the most interesting element of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
buidhe and LordPeterII How about something that actually discusses Turkey's WWII policies and considers both sides of the story:
- Alt1: ... that during World War II Turkey helped thousands of European Jews escape the Holocaust even as it enacted a law that discriminated against Turkish Jews?
- This is interesting because it shows the contradicting nature of Turkish policies. It also shows the good and the bad that Turkey did to Jews during WWII.
- Source:
"In November 1942, the [Turkish] government introduced a Property Tax (Varlιk Vergisi) ...[which effectively discriminated against Jews]. Meanwhile, and quite paradoxically, Turkish intervention saved many thousands of eastern European Jews from the Holocaust, by aiding their clandestine immigration into Palestine. There thus seems to have been a complete disconnect between internal and external policies.
William Hale (professor), Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774, page 67VR talk 17:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)- Not suitable, as I explained on talk, "saved" is not a WP:IMPARTIAL way to characterize giving a limited number of transit visas. Nor is it particularly interesting or unusual because that also Spain's policy at the same time was not dissimilar, although in the spanish case the laws discriminating against non-Catholics were passed before wwii. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have trouble understanding buidhe's comments. 1. The word "saved" only applies to the indicated "saved" people. So the fact that it is a "limited number" is not an issue - the number is indicated. There is no statement that all were saved. 2. The fact that Spain - not a Muslim country - had a similar approach does not as buidhe suggests make it not "particularly interesting or unusual". 2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you read other books that focus on this topic, such as Tuvia Friling's Arrows in the Dark, you would find that all of these transits were organized and paid for not by Turkey but by Jewish organizations, who faced many restrictions in their work. Furthermore, if you are going to contrast the transit visa issue with another Turkish policy, surely it would be denaturalization. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, now Vice regent your suggestion is problematic in the exact opposite direction: If buidhe's original hook shows Turkey in a negative light, yours show it in a very positive. I mean, if they enacted laws to discriminate against Jews, but then saved lots anyway, surely the law was more of a farce? (At least it sounds like that imo.)
- More importantly, ALT1 does contradict the article, as both the lede and the history section quite explicitly state that Turkey did not actively seek to rescue/save Jews, and rather let them pass through at best. There are notable examples, sure, but your hook would suggest it was a general and official rescue scheme. Especially this part of the lede, "Turkey and parts of the Turkish Jewish community have promoted exaggerated claims of rescuing Jews", is such a sentence as it directly contradicts the message of ALT1.
- I understand that this is a delicate topic, and I admit that I do not have nearly enough knowledge about it (or time to acquire it) to weigh in on the neutrality discussion about the article itself. My argumentation thus will revolve solely around the eligibility of hooks for the current article.
- Going back to the original hook ALT0, I must say that I am convinced by buidhe's point that they had previously gotten hooks approved that are quite critical - not unlike ALT0. Now I have previously made the mistake of invoking WP:OSE, but I do not believe this is the case here: If the DYK rules allowed several hooks to be approved that were critical extremely of Greece and Israel, why would a hook critical of Turkey be disallowed?
- So in conclusion, while I value the discussion and still agree that we must be careful not to break NPOV, I do not think that this is actually the case with ALT0. Instead, ALT1 is unsuitable because it contradicts the article (in its current form). Maybe you two will want to discuss the neutrality of the article itself first (and I see at least one uninvolved editor has weighed in there), and then this DYK discussion can resume once we know what the hook should be compared against. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- A full review of this nomination is needed, including all of the DYK criteria plus a fresh look at the proposed hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
At this point I think its time to pass on this article. The talk page has pointed to clear neutrality issues in the article, which editors on the talk page have complained about. In summary, those who have looked at these offline references have argued that the wikipedia article paints Turkey in a more negative light than the sources being cited. This has been an on going discussion and it appears the issues have not been fixed after months of dialogue. Because of this we cannot approve the hooks in good faith, and given that it has been four months it is time to move on.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, No, the neutrality tag was removed by Shrike and is not currently on the article. There was just one editor vocally complaining about alleged NPOV issues, no one else seems to agree with him. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately the talk page doesn't reflect a strong consensus. Having input from only one other editor in that conversation, and no affirming comments from Shrike on the talk page doesn't make for a convincing case in support of the neutrality concerns being raised. It might be helpful to get the opinions of those editors here to know what their opinions are specifically in defense of the article so we can build a clearly stated consensus. Having three editors is better than just two. Shrike and Vice regent would you care to comment?4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're forgetting Brigade Piron. I find it unacceptable that a single editor can derail a DYK nomination on totally spurious and mistaken grounds. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration, but as many of your sources are offline it is difficult as a reviewer to make up our own minds on a case like this; a fact you should appreciate by virtue that your nomination has languished for months. Brigade Piron Please comment here so we can build some consensus. I think we just need to hear from these other editors directly to help us draw a conclusion here at DYK. What's challenging is that not all of these editors participated in all of the relevant conversations on the talk page. If they are willing to chime in here and give some analysis on the neutrality issues raised, and a clearer consensus is formed I think a DYK review might be more likely to pass. Otherwise, I don't see how we could in good conscience promote this to the main page.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think Buidhe has been unfortunate in the fact that the subject of this article is both niche and controversial at once. I think there are two issues which have been confused here. The initial objection was the supposed POV in the hook which seems rightly to been dropped. The issue now appears to be the tone of the article which, frankly, is never going to be very positive. Although I am certainly not an expert in this specific subject, it is no secret that Turkish history is particularly controversial area here which attracts editors with nationalistic motivation. Whatever the objections raised, it is undeniable that Buidhe's text is impeccably cited to recent scholarship on the subject. Personally I see no serious POV argument here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- [I'm inclined to agree with this point of view, as I look through it more. I am going to approve hook alt1 and AGF on the offline ref. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt1 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can't support ALT1 as pointed out by LordPeterII above it is inconsistent with the article and not supported by various reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. Than I suggest we pass based on no viable hook.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- No reasonable objection has been made to the original hook, which is true, supported by reliable sources, and no more "POV" than many other hooks that have been promoted without objections. However, I also thought up another hook if preferable:
- Ok. Than I suggest we pass based on no viable hook.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can't support ALT1 as pointed out by LordPeterII above it is inconsistent with the article and not supported by various reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- [I'm inclined to agree with this point of view, as I look through it more. I am going to approve hook alt1 and AGF on the offline ref. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt1 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think Buidhe has been unfortunate in the fact that the subject of this article is both niche and controversial at once. I think there are two issues which have been confused here. The initial objection was the supposed POV in the hook which seems rightly to been dropped. The issue now appears to be the tone of the article which, frankly, is never going to be very positive. Although I am certainly not an expert in this specific subject, it is no secret that Turkish history is particularly controversial area here which attracts editors with nationalistic motivation. Whatever the objections raised, it is undeniable that Buidhe's text is impeccably cited to recent scholarship on the subject. Personally I see no serious POV argument here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration, but as many of your sources are offline it is difficult as a reviewer to make up our own minds on a case like this; a fact you should appreciate by virtue that your nomination has languished for months. Brigade Piron Please comment here so we can build some consensus. I think we just need to hear from these other editors directly to help us draw a conclusion here at DYK. What's challenging is that not all of these editors participated in all of the relevant conversations on the talk page. If they are willing to chime in here and give some analysis on the neutrality issues raised, and a clearer consensus is formed I think a DYK review might be more likely to pass. Otherwise, I don't see how we could in good conscience promote this to the main page.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're forgetting Brigade Piron. I find it unacceptable that a single editor can derail a DYK nomination on totally spurious and mistaken grounds. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately the talk page doesn't reflect a strong consensus. Having input from only one other editor in that conversation, and no affirming comments from Shrike on the talk page doesn't make for a convincing case in support of the neutrality concerns being raised. It might be helpful to get the opinions of those editors here to know what their opinions are specifically in defense of the article so we can build a clearly stated consensus. Having three editors is better than just two. Shrike and Vice regent would you care to comment?4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2014, Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu claimed that "there is no trace of genocide in our history"—thus denying the Armenian Genocide? Baer p. 1, "To deny the Armenian genocide, the foreign minister deployed a specific, dominant, utopian narrative of Ottoman and Turkish Jewish history." (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sources not used properly
I am going through some of the sources in this article and I find that they are not properly quoted. For example, the article says,
Although Turkey has promoted the idea that it was a rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, this is considered a myth by historians.
Page 4 of Baer does not name any historian besides himself who believes that. On the contrary he admits that "historians of the Ottoman Empire" have promoted what he calls the myth. That means he's admitting to his view being controversial among academia. He also blames "Turkish Jewish elites", "major American Jewish organizations" and "the State of Israel" for promoting the myth. None of this is reflected in the article.VR talk 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This source is also partially quoted. Webman calls Guttstadt's treatment of the topic "balanced" and she gives Turkey credit for things like
National Socialists’ racist hatred for Jews “was unambiguously rejected by the Turkish public”
. Overall this article casts Turkey is a more negative light than is done by the sources it uses.VR talk 21:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's clear that the negative impacts on Jews are from Turkish nationalist policies rather than antisemitism per se.
- I don't think that Baer says his views are controversial among academia. Most of the historians he refers to are either non-academics or, like Shaw, are discredited. (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yet you included the "antisemitism in Turkey" category in this article. You also didn't respond to my contention that sources hold both the State of Israel and American and Turkish Jews to be responsible for the myth, yet you seem to only hold Turkey responsible. I have provided in sections below other scholars who offer views contrary to Baer's (which is something he admits in his book).VR talk 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Shaw
This article could benefit from the works of Stanford Shaw who wrote Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey’s Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933–1945, published by New York University Press. I understand that Baer and others have strongly criticized that work, but other scholars have endorsed it.
- It received a positive review in International Journal of Middle East Studies by professor Howard Reed (University of Connecticut).
- Professor Avigdor Levy from Brandeis University gives it a qualified endorsement in the AJS Review:
In spite of these shortcomings, this is an important work that no serious student of the Holocaust can ignore.
- Professor Feroz Ahmed of University of Boston also endorses it, in Review of Middle East Studies, as
a significant contribution to our understanding of the relationship between the Jewish community and the state in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish republic
.VR talk 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- He seems to continued to be cited by scholarly publications. For example, Nazi Germany and the Arab world (page 245) cites him for the claim that
The role of Turkey in this developing process was very important. By 1943, Istanbul had replaced Switzerland as the central location for ... efforts to rescue Jews from German-occupied Europe.
VR talk 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)- In that book, Shaw prints fabricated claims about Necdet Kent and other Turkish diplomats. I would not consider it a RS for anything related to this topic. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- He seems to continued to be cited by scholarly publications. For example, Nazi Germany and the Arab world (page 245) cites him for the claim that
- Stanford Shaw also wrote a chapter in Jews, Turks, and Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century published Syracuse University Press in 2002. The book was edited professor Avigdor Levy and reviewed positively in Shofar (journal) in 2004 (therefore this is not "the 1990s"). Would you consider that chapter an acceptable source? VR talk 02:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. Shaw claims that 100,000 Jews transmitted through Turkey. But only 16,474 arrived in Palestine, including thousands of Jews who emigrated from Turkey.[7][8] Where did the other 90,000 go? This is not the kind of discrepancy that results from an honest disagreement between academics. (t · c) buidhe 02:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like you're doing WP:SYNTH. I'm evaluating sources based on how other scholars evaluate them, rather then doing WP:Original research for myself and see which scholar is right. At this point, I'm not seeing evidence that Shaw's views are so WP:FRINGE that they can't be included in this article. At best, his views can be treated as minority and given lesser WP:WEIGHT than other scholars.VR talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Err, we do not give equal weight to facts and falsehoods. The issue isn't about Shaw's opinions but actual fabricated information in his books. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've been asked to weigh in. I must admit that I agree with Buidhe on this point. Shaw is already mentioned in the "commemoration" section - it is not like his book is otherwise entirely omitted. At the same time, we must accept that scholarly consensus changes over time and does so relatively quickly in a field such as Holocaust studies where there are a large number of writers and scholarly accuracy is considered particularly important. From the scholarship today as I understand it, it is WP:FRINGE now even if it was not 20 years ago. Are there not more productive ways in which this article could be expanded? 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Err, we do not give equal weight to facts and falsehoods. The issue isn't about Shaw's opinions but actual fabricated information in his books. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like you're doing WP:SYNTH. I'm evaluating sources based on how other scholars evaluate them, rather then doing WP:Original research for myself and see which scholar is right. At this point, I'm not seeing evidence that Shaw's views are so WP:FRINGE that they can't be included in this article. At best, his views can be treated as minority and given lesser WP:WEIGHT than other scholars.VR talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Evaluating Turkey vs other countries
The article says Turkey was also the only neutral country to implement anti-Jewish laws during the war.
Baer indeed says that. But Bahar's Turkey and the Rescue of European Jews (p 263-4), Routledge, takes a contrary view:
Thus, as pointed out wisely by Guttstadt and reiterated by Hür in her newspaper article, the attitude of the Turkish government and authorities was not much different from that of other countries at the time. In this respect, Turkey is not to be blamed for much of the adverse events that happened during those extraordinary times.
This view should be reflected in the article.VR talk 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't contradict what it says in the other source. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- My point is that this article is not neutral because it only presents views that are critical of Turkey, but not sympathetic views, even though sympathetic views can be found in scholarship.VR talk 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to include opinions from various scholars, why not this one: "Guttstadt overturns the conventional wisdom that Turkey devoted considerable effort to rescue Jews; indeed, his documentation from fifty archives in eleven countries and from oral histories reveals vivid vignettes of horror that convince the reader that Turkey facilitated the Holocaust." (from Baer's review of the book).
- It's a mistake to call that a "sympathetic" view, considering that historians also negatively evaluate the role of other neutral countries. No one is blaming Turkey for what Germany did. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- You literally just blamed Turkey for what Germany did by saying "Turkey facilitated the Holocaust". That is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which will require extraordinary sourcing.VR talk 02:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- You shouldn't assume that I agree with an opinion just because I quote it. (Also, I interpret Baer's statement as blaming Turkey solely for the actions that it undertook, as opposed to Germany's actions.) However, if we're going to cover comparisons between Turkey and other countries, I think it's best to emphasize objective and factual information of how Turkey's policies compared to that of other countries, rather than subjective opinions. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- You literally just blamed Turkey for what Germany did by saying "Turkey facilitated the Holocaust". That is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which will require extraordinary sourcing.VR talk 02:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, Corry Guttstadt seems to contradict the statement
Turkey was also the only neutral country to implement anti-Jewish laws
. Guttstadt says (page 313), The German authorities also repeatedly noted that Turkey did not issue openly anti-Semitic laws and was not susceptible to anti-Semitic hate campaigns.
- VR talk 03:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Anti-Semitic laws" != "anti-Jewish laws", the former are those that actively target Jews alone and the latter those that have a negative effect on Jews. The fact that the laws also discriminated against Christians means that they are not strictly speaking antisemitic, but can hardly be described as less anti-Jewish for this reason. Similarly, not all anti-Jewish violence is motivated by antisemitism, see the distinction made in anti-Jewish violence in Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- This same distinction is made by Guttstadt, see how she repeatedly refers to Turkey's "anti-Jewish" policies in this paper.[9] (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then the term "anti-Jewish" should not be used because even on wikipedia Anti-Jewish actually redirects to Antisemitism.VR talk 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- This same distinction is made by Guttstadt, see how she repeatedly refers to Turkey's "anti-Jewish" policies in this paper.[9] (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Anti-Semitic laws" != "anti-Jewish laws", the former are those that actively target Jews alone and the latter those that have a negative effect on Jews. The fact that the laws also discriminated against Christians means that they are not strictly speaking antisemitic, but can hardly be described as less anti-Jewish for this reason. Similarly, not all anti-Jewish violence is motivated by antisemitism, see the distinction made in anti-Jewish violence in Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- My point is that this article is not neutral because it only presents views that are critical of Turkey, but not sympathetic views, even though sympathetic views can be found in scholarship.VR talk 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Turkey saved thousands by aiding their escape
buidhe the information you removed here is supported by scholarship. I even attributed it in case it was contradicted.VR talk 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't remove any information—although I did move it to a more relevant place next to Struma disaster that also affects Jewish refugees. Furthermore, the characterization "granted transit visas to" as "saved" is imprecise and does not satisfy WP:IMPARTIAL. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- "saved" was never put in wikivoice but rather attributed, so it is not a violation.VR talk 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)