Talk:Giado concentration camp

POV issues
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. 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  23:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s cited to Haaretz, if I’m not mistaken, which is quite reliable. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be stated in wiki voice unless it's not significantly disputed by reliable sources, which is not the case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources dispute that the decision followed Abramski-Bligh’s study? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 22:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It assumes that the Holocaust included Libya and Tunisia, which is a minority view overall. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Any wording that fixes the problem I identified which could be done most simply by not using the word "Holocaust". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)

Note to any prospective GA reviewer: Sourcing issues with this article have NOT been fixed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)