This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 30 January 2011 (→Jayjgs edit: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:42, 30 January 2011 by Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) (→Jayjgs edit: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Jewish history Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This article is shocking
This article is shocking - selective quoting and misinterpretation of sources in an extreme way, to the extent which I never encountered in Misplaced Pages. Some sources were completely turned on their head to prove the absolute opposite of what the author intended. Serious fact checking is needed to verify all the citations in this article and correct the parts which were taken out of context. It seems to be based to a large extent on the quotes used in the widely discredited propaganda book "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews". Help is needed. Marokwitz (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Section "Antislavery Movement in the Nineteenth Century" belongs in Judaism and slavery?
The sections "Antislavery Movement in the Nineteenth Century" and "Modern Times" seem to have quite a bit of material that is more appropriate for the article Judaism and slavery. That article was the original article, and this "slave trade" article was broken-out as a WP:Content fork. The material in this article should have a rather specific relation to the slave trade (vs. slavery in general). The "Modern Times" section does have some material on L. Jefferies, which is directly related to the slave trade, but the other material is not. I dont propose to delete any material, but some of it should be moved into Judaism and slavery. Noleander (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added a "main" tag to the "Nineteenth century" section, which points the reader to the identical section in the Judaism and slavery article. I have not yet started on the "Modern" section. --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles should be merged into one. Marokwitz (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome to submit a Merger proposal, but the new article would probably be rather large. In addition, I think other editors have said that the Judaism and slavery article should be dedicated to a discussion of Judiasm's religious laws governing slavery, so you may want to initiate a discussion on that Talk page to get their input and consensus. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marokwitz: Since the articles are not now merged, why do you think that the material on slavery in general (not related to the slave trade) should be in this article? And what does the top photo, taken in 1909, have to do with the slave trade? Regarding POV: there is plenty of balancing material directly related to the slave trade (and there is a significant amount of such balancing material already in the article), so that alone cannot be a reason to include material unrelated to the slave trade. --Noleander (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marokwitz: the lead paragr is a bit peculiar, in its current state. The lead needs to summarize the article. This article is NOT about "Many scholars conclude that Jewish participation in slave trade is minimal". If it were, the lead would be appropriate. The article is about the entire history of Jewish involvement in slave trading. The recent "how extensive was it?" debate only took place after 1991, and should not dominate the lead. Do you want to split the article, and have have an entire article dedicated to the debate and measurement? If not, then the lead needs to be more encyclopedic, less argumentative. It should simply state facts, probably in chronological (historical) order. The "minimal" information should be in the lead, but should not dominate the several first sentences. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it now fairly summarizes the main points of the article. The article has a very large coverage of the topic of how prominent were Jews in the slave trade, and thus this should be given due weight in the lead. If you feel something important is missing, feel free to add it. And this and the other article about Judaism and slavery should be merged, which would make this discussion irrelevant. 05:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so since you didnt respond to the questions (" Since the articles are not now merged, why do you think that the material on slavery in general (not related to the slave trade) should be in this article? And what does the top photo, taken in 1909, have to do with the slave trade? ") I take it you have no objection to removing that material in the event the merger does not occur. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the lead, it just does not read well, and is not very logically organized. I'll take a stab at improving it soon. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so since you didnt respond to the questions (" Since the articles are not now merged, why do you think that the material on slavery in general (not related to the slave trade) should be in this article? And what does the top photo, taken in 1909, have to do with the slave trade? ") I take it you have no objection to removing that material in the event the merger does not occur. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it now fairly summarizes the main points of the article. The article has a very large coverage of the topic of how prominent were Jews in the slave trade, and thus this should be given due weight in the lead. If you feel something important is missing, feel free to add it. And this and the other article about Judaism and slavery should be merged, which would make this discussion irrelevant. 05:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marokwitz: the lead paragr is a bit peculiar, in its current state. The lead needs to summarize the article. This article is NOT about "Many scholars conclude that Jewish participation in slave trade is minimal". If it were, the lead would be appropriate. The article is about the entire history of Jewish involvement in slave trading. The recent "how extensive was it?" debate only took place after 1991, and should not dominate the lead. Do you want to split the article, and have have an entire article dedicated to the debate and measurement? If not, then the lead needs to be more encyclopedic, less argumentative. It should simply state facts, probably in chronological (historical) order. The "minimal" information should be in the lead, but should not dominate the several first sentences. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marokwitz: Since the articles are not now merged, why do you think that the material on slavery in general (not related to the slave trade) should be in this article? And what does the top photo, taken in 1909, have to do with the slave trade? Regarding POV: there is plenty of balancing material directly related to the slave trade (and there is a significant amount of such balancing material already in the article), so that alone cannot be a reason to include material unrelated to the slave trade. --Noleander (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome to submit a Merger proposal, but the new article would probably be rather large. In addition, I think other editors have said that the Judaism and slavery article should be dedicated to a discussion of Judiasm's religious laws governing slavery, so you may want to initiate a discussion on that Talk page to get their input and consensus. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles should be merged into one. Marokwitz (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that attitude of the Jewish public to the slavery / abolition / slave ownership debate is very relevant to understanding the issue of slave trade and should be kept. Besides it is just a short summary of the main article on this topic, not a copy. Marokwitz (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Not Unprecedented
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1991/9112/9112RES.CFM
"The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." Hetware (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the word "unprecedented" from those two AHA-related sentences. --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Changes are irrational
Salamaater: The sentence
- Though disproprotionate, like Christian and Muslim neighbors, few Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade.
is incomprehensible. You'll need to make it sensible before you can insert it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
- Jewish participation in the slave trade was recorded no earlier starting in the 5th century, when
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key.
--Noleander (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Your POV and distortion of history
It is enough that such a dreadful "page" exist, not accurate to compare to Islamic or Christian slavery, don't overdo (your distortion of history) it.Lawsmass (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. The article accurately reflects what the sources say. If you think some sources are not accurately represented, please point out the errors. Your personal opinions on the topic (or mine) are not relevant. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Lead paragr incomprehensible
Lawmass/Salamaat: The 1st sentence in the article is not comprehensible: "Though disproprotionate, like Christian and Muslim neighbors, few Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade.". That was pointed out above, and you declined to participate in a dialog. Please fix it.
What source do you have for "no earlier "in :
- Jewish participation in the slave trade was recorded no earlier starting in the 5th century, when
Why do you want to remove the sentence "Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and they owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in .." The fact that this was in the context of Europeans moving to the Americas is key. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lawmass/Salamaat: during the page-protection period, we are supposed to engage in constructive dialog here to help make this a better article. Can you respond to the questions above? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Curaçao
The name Curaçao should be spelled with a cedilla. JamesBrownIsDead (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. When the page gets un-protected I'll make the improvement, if no one has beat me to it. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is just NOI propaganda
This article is Nation of islam racist crap. Jews were a tiny, virtually insignificant part of the total slave trade. Where is the article on "Anglicans and the Slave Trade" or "Catholics and the Slave Trade"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? The article already has a large amount of "rebuttal" information that counters the claims made by the NOI, including quotes from about a dozen notable scholars. The lead paragraph reflects the "balancing" opinions quite accurately. To add a POV tag, you need to be a bit more specific, such as identifying some wording that is biased; or pointing out material that is missing from the article; or identifying un-sourced material that is biased, etc. That way other editors can have some guidance on how to remedy the POV shortcomings. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just a little confused. Given the opening paragraph, why does this article exist? The lead clearly lays out that any connection between the Jewish people or religion is non-notable and had no major impact.
NPOV or not, why is this an article here? Joe407 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)"...it is now clear that Jews did not dominate the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas, and that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery. They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades."
- The article is here because there are several scholarly works on this topic (see the list in the article). Since scholars are studying this topic and writing about it, it meets the WP:Notability requirement. You might have a point if no scholars wrote on this topic. But they do. If you think the article is not accurately representing what the scholars are saying, point out the specific problem area so other editors can work to remedy the problem. --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just a little confused. Given the opening paragraph, why does this article exist? The lead clearly lays out that any connection between the Jewish people or religion is non-notable and had no major impact.
Citations needed
Jehochman: Thanks for pointing out that a couple of paragraphs need citations. I'm 99.9% sure that text accurately represents what the secondary sources say, but give me a couple of weeks to hunt down the sources. I think some of those assertions are (either explicitly or implicitly) detailed in the following subsections. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
percentage of jewish population involved in slavery of black africans
What most of the sources imply is that the percentage of the jewish population involved in black african slavery was much larger than the percentage of whites involved in black african slavery. Since all history textbooks unfairly blame the entire population of white people for the enslavement of blacks even if only a few white people were involved with in it, it is not so unjust to blame all jews for there part in the slavery of black africans since they were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where do the sources imply that? And where do history textbooks do that? Jayjg 00:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
JayJig I have a problem with this
Do you think this tone should be in the LEDE, I really prefer if you edit it since you have more experience here than me. I would also suggest using reference for Curacoa and Suriname . I think the evidence should speak without the sections i have placed in bold.
In the 1490s, the Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, at the same time that trade with the New World was opening up, leading to their participation in Atlantic trading in general, and the Atlantic slave trade in particular. Jewish participation in the slave trade was in Brazil, Curacao, Suriname, and Rhode Island, but otherwise was modest or minimal, and Jews had virtually no role in the slave trading of England or France. The Anti-Jewish organization Nation of Islam published The Secret Relation between Blacks and Jews in 1991, which asserted that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade
and This statement has nothing to do with this topic. It might work better here antisemitism
In modern times, American Jews have been very active in fighting prejudice and discrimination, and have historically been active participants in civil rights movements, including active support of and participation in the black civil rights / desegregation movement.
--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lede just summarizes the article, which already has all this information in it. If you have any specific objections to article content, please outline them here, making sure you refer to policies and reliable sources. Jayjg 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lede or not it needs references not creative writing see wikipedia tone and references required. Please do not remove tags without a proper discussion. All content needs references and professional tone without bias, is that something new? see and WP:TONE Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Misplaced Pages articles. The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lede does not need references, and there's nothing wrong with the tone. In fact, in my last FA I was forced to remove all references from the lede simply because people object to references in the lede. Also, you haven't articulated any specific issues with the material, but merely with what the reliable sources say on the topic. You also blindly reverted all copyedits. If you have any specific issue with the way the material is written as it relates to policy please articulate it here, rather than re-tagging. If you disruptively re-add the tags rather than actually discussing issues, I'll be forced to deal with this in a much more serious venue. Jayjg 17:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Direct me to the page that says no references need in the lede? Thanks. And leave the pointless threats at home. What serious venue are you discussing, you are an editor on wikipedia--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lede does not need references, and there's nothing wrong with the tone. In fact, in my last FA I was forced to remove all references from the lede simply because people object to references in the lede. Also, you haven't articulated any specific issues with the material, but merely with what the reliable sources say on the topic. You also blindly reverted all copyedits. If you have any specific issue with the way the material is written as it relates to policy please articulate it here, rather than re-tagging. If you disruptively re-add the tags rather than actually discussing issues, I'll be forced to deal with this in a much more serious venue. Jayjg 17:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lede or not it needs references not creative writing see wikipedia tone and references required. Please do not remove tags without a proper discussion. All content needs references and professional tone without bias, is that something new? see and WP:TONE Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Misplaced Pages articles. The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't so much that the lead doesn't need references as that the references that support the lead don't have to be actually in the lead. So if material in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article, is referenced elsewhere, than an inline citation in the lead isn't necessary. And contentious material in the lead should certainly be in the article with references. A more serious venue than this might be WP:ANI, although there are others and I don't know what Jayjg has in mind. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then take me to this serious venue, If you said the sky is blue okay. But some serious statements need references. Now reference exist everywhere else on wiki ledes. I am reading the lede, like others. Most do that, they do not want to search deep inside the guts of an article to figure out "Where does that come from". So if the info is true then produce the reliable sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the seven most recent Featured Articles: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), The Temple at Thatch, Temple of Eshmun, Hurricane Kyle (2002), Little Thetford, Lions (album). Featured Articles are the highest quality articles on Misplaced Pages, and have been carefully edited to ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Note that none of them have citations in their ledes. Jayjg 21:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then take me to this serious venue, If you said the sky is blue okay. But some serious statements need references. Now reference exist everywhere else on wiki ledes. I am reading the lede, like others. Most do that, they do not want to search deep inside the guts of an article to figure out "Where does that come from". So if the info is true then produce the reliable sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't so much that the lead doesn't need references as that the references that support the lead don't have to be actually in the lead. So if material in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article, is referenced elsewhere, than an inline citation in the lead isn't necessary. And contentious material in the lead should certainly be in the article with references. A more serious venue than this might be WP:ANI, although there are others and I don't know what Jayjg has in mind. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ, what in the lead is not sourced in the rest of the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Jayjgs edit
Why did you remove in this edit: "The book's thesis was that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and the book supported that thesis with numerous quotations from scholarly works, including Arnold Wiznitzer and Marc Lee Raphael." ? And why did you change it from "which documented involvement" to "alleged that Jews dominated" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Categories: