# Talk:Jozef Tiso's speech in Holíč

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slovak, cast off your parasite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 02:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll deliver the review in a few hours. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Title and fact checking
First, I publicly state that I'm assuming good faith for fact accuracy regarding all sources, except for Fatran 1994 (which I could access through Sci-Hub) and Rothkirchen 2000 (whose link is provided in the article). I tried to access the others through Google Books, but couldn't. I know probably most of them can only be accessed physically, so don't you worry. I've counter-checked information supported by both (refs 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 in this version) and all are okay. But this is just formality.
I also have pdfs of Ward and Rajcan et al if you would like to check, and images for both Kamenec sources.
Cool. That would be nice.
The main thing is: as a consequence of not being able to access the remaining sources, I have a doubt about the article's title. Does any of the sources refer to the speech as "Slovak, cast off your parasite"? I ask this because Fatran 1994 and Rothkirchen 2000 don't, and it is important to satisfy WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
The problem is that none of the sources explicitly give a name for the speech. I initially started the draft at Jozef Tiso's speech in Holič, but I decided to change the name to the most recognizable phrase in the speech because of the "recognizability" criterion and to match the article titles of other speeches (see List of speeches)
Hm, that's a difficult issue. How did you determine "the most recognizable phrase"? Does any source say it? Anyway, there's no problem to use something like 1942 Jozef Tiso speech or Jozef Tiso's August 1942 speech as other articles indicate
I've moved to Jozef Tiso's speech in Holič; he didn't give any other speeches in Holic and the place is more recognizable than the date (see here)
If the answer for the former question is yes, you must add quotation marks to it, according to MOS:MINORWORK
Background
"In an 8 March petition delieverd by" – misspelling of "delivered"
Fixed
"Slovak Jewish community leaders condemned the planned deportation of Slovakia's Jews, exhorting Tiso to cancel them because they represented" – if I am right, the pronouns "them" and "they" do not match the object of condemnation i.e. "the planned deportation"; as it is singular, it should be "it" in both cases, or you can change to "deportations", of course
Fixed
Content
Do Kamenec 2002 or Rajcan, Vadkerty & Hlavinka 2018 discuss the divergence dates? I mean, I see that Rothkirchen 2000 only give the date as self-assured. Is the are meta-literature discussion regarding it? Whether the answer is yes or no, I was wondering if it's not best to have it only as "August 1942" and then you could add a note similar to this one explaining that the sources diverge. Also, I assume Fatran 1994 favors 16 August since it states the "speech [was] delivered two days earlier" than the Dieter Wisliceny's 18 August letter. I'm not sure if it's ok to assume it, though, as the date is not clearly stated.
The specific date of the speech is somewhat important because of the surrounding events (deportations were temporarily suspended in early August, and also with Wisliceny's letter). So just saying "in August 1942" is too vague. The source of the estimates is not discussed in any of the sources, and I think that extrapolating the date from Fatran is just WP:CALC.
Good reasoning.
You should replace the curly apostrophes (’) with straight apostrophes (') in the quote, according to WP:'
I wonder why there are two different sources posited in different positions for the quote. Just to assure it's not a synthesis.
No synthesis here, the previous sentence in the Ward quote is "But I ask: is it Christian if the Slovak nation wants to rid itself of its eternal enemy—the Jew?" which is clearly a different translation of the same original text. I used the two sources in order to avoid excessive quoting of any copyrighted text.
Ok.
"argued that the remaining Jews had to be deported into allow the development of Slovakia" – the italicized part sounds awkwardly wording for me because of the use of the preposition "into". Maybe "to allow"?
Fixed
Reactions
"Slovak historian Ivan Kamenec wrote that the speech was Tiso's "most significant statement" on the 1942 deportations, because many Slovaks believed Tiso's claims due to his authority as president and priest" – the comma seems unnecessary and probably wrong because it is separating a dependent clause
Removed
"a cynical polticial demagogue" – could you check if the misspelling is in the original source?
Fixed
You refer to Wisliceny as an "SS officer", while Fatran 1994, p. 165 refers to Wisliceny as an SS Hauptsturmführer; of course, both are correct. But I think the latter would be more precise. It's just an opinion, though; it's up to you.
I don't think Wisliceny's exact rank is important. Most readers probably don't even know that  Hauptsturmführer is an SS officer rank.
Fine. It's true.
Overall, the article is good enough to pass. Just a few details need to be fixed or discussed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. After your edits, I am one step away from promoting it. Not sure if it's totally within the scope of GAR, but I think the title is an important issue. I think I'll also wait for the other references just out of curiosity (it's a fascinating topic) and to be a little more criterious with the second GA criteria. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I think your title solution is fine (as Ward 2013 prefer the location too ["Tiso's Holíč statement", p. 8; "the Holíč speech", p. 234]) even more when I see that the translation of that part is not unanimous ("go and get rid of your pesterer", writes The Spectator; "free yourself from those who harm you", Rajcan 2018). Regarding the sources, all information from Ward 2013, p. 8 and Kamenec 2002, p. 120, 130 (you didn't send me 119 or 131) check; most information from Ward 2013, p. 231, 234, and Rajcan et all 2018, p. 843, 845, 847 check. I've spotted only a few things:
About the sentence ("In an 8 March petition delivered by Neolog rabbi Armin Frieder, Slovak Jewish community leaders condemned the planned deportation of Slovakia's Jews, exhorting Tiso to cancel the deportations because they represented the "physical destruction of the Jews in Slovakia") supported by Ward 2013, p. 231: it's only partially covered by the source. It confirms the petition, that Frieder is a rabbi, and the quote. However, I don't see the exact date nor the Neolog bit (however, I didn't read the full article, only this page, and did some "Ctrl"+"F" search). And I further ask: is "Neolog" worth mentioning? isn't it somewhat equivalent to specify the SS officer rank?
Removed, I can see that it's not especially relevant
I see Kamenec 2002, p. 120 mentions Vatican opposition to the deportations. Wouldn't it be interesting to mention it since you've pointed out the Jewish community opposition? Also, it seems relevant as it is a contrast to Tiso's Christian-based justification.
Added
You say "The deportations began on 26 March 1942", but the given source (Rajcan 2018, p. 847) says "the Germans did not have to force Ľudáks to deport the Jews from Slovakia and that on March 26, 1942, only a day after the deportation started". So, we can assume it started on March 25. Indeed, it's confirmed by both Ward 2013, p. 230, and Kamenec 2002, p. 130.
Fixed
"55,000 [supported by Ward 2013] of the 89,000 [supported by Rajcan 2018] Jews living in the Slovak State had been deported at the time of Tiso's speech": the number of Jews deported given by Ward 2013 refers to "the time of this statement", while the total number of Jews by Rajcan 2018 dates "By 1940". I know it's probably difficult to have more coincident numbers, but do you think it's worth mentioning from when the statistics are? Maybe in a parenthesis "(as estimated in 1940)" or even a note detailing the first number is from 1942 and the second is from 1940.
Added a note giving some context behind the figure
Reading Ward 2013, p. 233-4 (especially "the regime was running out of Jews that it could agree on to deport, the number falling throughout June and July." and "In August, the Slovaks deported no Jews."), I had the impression that the speech was done because the deportation numbers were falling down. Of course, it would be original research to assume it's the reason. However, wouldn't it be relevant to mention this "slack off" on "Background" section? Indeed, Ward 2013, p. 234 concludes: "Lest there be any doubt, he was talking about the stalled deportations".
Added
The date of Hitler's remark on "Reactions" isn't mentioned by the given source (Ward 2013, p. 234).
Added additional source for this
I see Kamenec 2002, p. 130 mentions that "these deportations did not fully develop", although mentions some in September and October. He concludes that there were 57,628 i.e "only" ~2,700 more than the 55,000 mentioned by Ward 2013. Wouldn't it be worth including in the "Reactions"? Maybe it could be renamed "Aftermath" to better reflect it, though. Another relevant information is given by Ward 2013, p. 8: "Tiso's regime would deliver 2,800 more Jews to Germany before ceasing deportations in fall 1942"
The discrepancy in these figures is because Kamenec is counting the deportations in September/October.
After these issues are discussed/resolved, I think it may be ok to pass the article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Just pinging Catrìona because maybe they didn't see my response. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji: I'm sorry it took me a few days to get back to this, but I think I addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think, and thanks for the very detailed review. Catrìona (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Don't you worry. It's ok. I'm giving it a pass right now. (Just a note: I think the date that the deportations began is important; I don't know why you removed it and I hope didn't imply you should. Anyway, it's up to re-add it or not.) Nice work! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)