Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
::::::::::::::::::::I think it's reasonable to assume that they didn't open up a catalog and say, hmm, where shall I book cruise tickets. They went where they could. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::::::::I think it's reasonable to assume that they didn't open up a catalog and say, hmm, where shall I book cruise tickets. They went where they could. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::::::::::They went with those they sided with (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) to the country that they fought for (that's a choice that they made). Some stayed (that's another choice that they could have made). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::::::They went with those they sided with (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) to the country that they fought for (that's a choice that they made). Some stayed (that's another choice that they could have made). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::::::::::Staying was clearly not an option for most. And in any case, if Algerian Jews "went home to France" as you insist, then I presume [[Vietnamese boat people]] went "home to the US" after the [[Fall of Saigon]]. --[[User:Bender235|bender235]] ([[User talk:Bender235|talk]]) 23:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And @[[User:Bender235|Bender235]], thanks for that edit, which is constructive IMHO. I'm not saying you need to remove the primary source, but the interpretation should come from the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] study. Ideally you can add both sources in a [[WP:REFBUNDLE]] cite. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::::And @[[User:Bender235|Bender235]], thanks for that edit, which is constructive IMHO. I'm not saying you need to remove the primary source, but the interpretation should come from the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] study. Ideally you can add both sources in a [[WP:REFBUNDLE]] cite. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:40, 23 November 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danielmharris.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Isn't?
Isn't Ladino considered a language of Moroccan Jews?Adam Holland 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not exactly. The Ladino that was used in Morocco came from the Jews who came from Spain. There were two or three different Jewish communities in Morocco. The Jews who came from Spain in the Middle Ages and later were considered a different community from the Moroccan Jews who had been there for a longer period of time.--EhavEliyahu 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made my question clearer. Since SOME Moroccan Jews were Sephardic (i.e. came there from Spain) and DID spoke Ladino, why not included it in the article alongside the more indigenous languages used by Jews?
Adam Holland 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- A very major % of Moroccan Jews are Sephardic (not just "some") and in fact most of them adopted local Arabic when settling through the country except for those living in Tetuan and Tangiers and regions surrounded who kept a form of Ladino known as Haketia.
- Interesting - please provide citation and source for article.Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The relationship with the Sunni Muslim majority has suffered in recent years
"The relationship with the Sunni Muslim majority has suffered in recent years". Is this true? Only if you assume it was better to begin with. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was certainly better to begin with. It went from having ups and downs to being almost untenable for any Jews to remain in these lands. There are a few left in Tunisia, and some in the Spanish possessions of Ceuta and Melilla, I imagine there are a few scattered holdouts elsewhere, but within living memory there were Jews in every city (and some other areas) throughout the Maghreb. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Certainly better? That's a pretty bold assertion. From what I can tell, like was generally pretty grim for the Jews there until the European powers took over; then things got much better. Do you have a source for "certainly better"? Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Jay, the truth is, I don't care enough about this stub article to fight about it. If you want, just remove the paragraph. Eventually, someone (probably not me) will do the legwork to turn this stub into an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Population in France
It seems to me that France also has a noticeable jewish community from Maghreb.
I remember reading that after Algeria's independance a great part of Algerian jews choose France over Israel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.248.24.253 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That is right , Jews of Algeria became the largest jewish community in France..This is the reason why Sephardic Judaism is dominant in France , while before 1962 and 1945 (WW2's end) , it was mostly Ashkenazi.--Ekarfi13
Sephardim
Souldn't the article mention that Jews of Maghreb are classed as Sephardi Jews and are technically always described as such everywhere they go (France , Israel , Canada and so on) ? . They only are sometimes included in the "Mizrahi" category because of Maghreb is considered as part of the Arab world , otherwise , Maghreb Jews are closer to Iberian Jews ( and so Turkish Jews , Greek Jews and so on) than they are to proper "Mizrahi" groups such as Iraqi Jews/Iranian Jews.Ekarfi13 23:40 25 October 2010 (UTC).
- Ekarfi13, you've inserted this source to support your claim that Jews of the Maghreb are typically seen as Sephardi, or you in your words, "Thus why many modernday Jews of the Maghreb are largely considered as Sephardic Jews". Where does the source say this? I can't see it. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ekarf13, you've done it again. Can you please support your claim? Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This source which I post just explains how there was an acculturation of the previous Jewish community by the Sephardi Jewish community who came between 1391 and 1492. Richard Ayoun is a perfect source since he's a specialist of that subject. Ekarfi13 10:45 (UTC)
- Acculturation between 1391 and 1492 is not what the text claims. And don't restore unsourced claims. Jayjg (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- This source which I post just explains how there was an acculturation of the previous Jewish community by the Sephardi Jewish community who came between 1391 and 1492. Richard Ayoun is a perfect source since he's a specialist of that subject. Ekarfi13 10:45 (UTC)
Notable Maghrebi Jews
What about adding Richard Wolffe as a notable Maghrebi Jew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pross001 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Algeria section
@M.Bitton: I'm open for compromise, but I'd like to hear an explanation what part of the old paragraph that I removed is (for lack of a better word) salvageable:
“ | In the 1930s and 1940s, nearly the entire continent of Africa was colonized. Algeria belonged to France; however, during World War II, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi forces took interest in the heavy Jewish presence in North Africa. The Algerian Jewish community was one of the most affected by Hitler's motives. | ” |
The first sentence is misleading, as it seems to imply Algeria came under French colonial rule in the 1930s, when in fact it was part of the French "mère patrie" since 1848. The second sentence is equally misleading, because Nazi Germany did not govern Algeria at any point, nor was Hitler particularly interested in North Africa (I'd like to see the WP:RS that claims otherwise). The third sentence is unnecessarily vague (affected how?) and void of content (what motives of Hitler's? Were Algerian Jews transported to Auschwitz like European Jews were?). --bender235 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're trying to portray the Algerian Jews as victims, when the real victims were the Muslims whose population was decimated over the course of 130 years of brutal colonization. If some Jews died in the violent place that was Algeria back then, they barely represent a drop in the ocean (mentioning the death of a singer is akin to scrapping the barrel). The fact that the majority of Algerian Jews chose the side of the colonizer is what matters here, and as a result, they left with the Pied-noirs. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody denies the atrocities suffered by the Algerian Muslim population under French rule, but after all this article about the Jewish population. I take it that you agree that the existing paragraph was misleading at best. The two paragraphs that I wrote as replacement actually address the issues you've raised: Algerian Jews "chose the side of the colonizer" because they've been given citizenship in 1870 (and again, in 1943) while their Muslim neighbors weren't. The notion that this led to growing antisemitism that culminated in the pogroms of the 1930s is taken almost verbatim from the source that was already in the article ([1]). That same source also specifically names the looting of the Algiers synagogue and the assassination of a popular singer as the triggering events for Jewish exodus. All I did was rephrasing and adding another academic source. So what specifically is your objection? Which part of the new paragraph is factually wrong, or what is missing? --bender235 (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I think you both have a valid point. Antisemitism is a modern word - they didn't have a word for antisemitism in the early 1800s. But there was still anti-Jewish and antisemitic activity before there was a word for it. So we should be careful about attributing antisemitism to all pre-modern anti-Jewish activities. And I agree with bender235 that the Algerian synagogue destruction might be relevant, so it shouldn't be removed, but the NYT article is a WP:PRIMARY source so we should find a more reliable secondary source to support it. UNDUE, however, is not the right policy to cite here. Andre🚐 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I don't quite follow your logic about the word "antisemitic" being anachronistic for events in 1930 or 1960. Even if the word itself is of modern origin, it can be used in an encyclopedic context as part of the general description for historical events. Just for an analogy: the Battle of Cannae is described as an innovative use of the "double envelopment tactic" despite that being, of course, a word/concept unknown to both Romans and Carthaginians. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Antisemitism (a new word that is stuck everywhere) had nothing to do with it. The Algerian Jews were first and foremost French who were caught in the crossfire. At some point, they made their bed by choosing the side of the oppressors and consequently, they left with them (despite everything the French had done to them). M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter whether we think today Algerian Jews made the right choice or deserve any sympathy; your statement is inappropriately personalizing the historical events. The question is if any reliable secondary sources described the events in 1930 or 1960 as antisemitic. If and only if the sources say that, we can also say that. Andre🚐 22:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I never said they made the wrong choice, but the fact that they chose the side of the oppressor is easily attributed to RS, there is nothing personal about that. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV says that oppressor, victim, sides, etc., need to be made very dry and boring. I feel an emotional content coming from you in statements like,
portray the Algerian Jews as victims, when the real victims were the Muslims whose population was decimated over the course of 130 years of brutal colonization. If some Jews died in the violent place that was Algeria back then, they barely represent a drop in the ocean (mentioning the death of a singer is akin to scrapping the barrel). The fact that the majority of Algerian Jews chose the side of the colonizer is what matters here
This article is "Maghrebi Jews." By its nature, the focus of this article will be on the Jewish people, including notable deaths of individuals. That isn't to minimize any plight of neighboring Muslims. Likely, both groups were victimized by the French colonizers, and it's not a contest. Andre🚐 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)- Would you say the same thing when talking about the holocaust? M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are we really WP:GODWINing now? I would indeed say that if there was an article about the deaths of Romani Holocaust, that it would be inappropraite to say, "why are we talking about Romani deaths, that was a drop in the ocean, the real victims are Jews." Andre🚐 22:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Except that the Jews in this instance took the side of the oppressor, with some of them even joining the OAS. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- And some Jews took the sides of the Nazis too. They are called kapos or self-hating Jews. But we don't paint an entire group with the brush of some of the members. We have to report and reflect on all of it, including some contradictions in terms that do exist in reality sometimes. Andre🚐 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Were those Jews a majority and did they leave leave with the Nazis? No, so no point in comparing apples to oranges. Also, I'm not talking about all of them, nor am I stating anything that isn't easily sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- According to the book source just added by bender, Jews were split roughly between the Algerian nationalists and the OAS. This isn't my area of expertise, but that is what the book says [3] Andre🚐 22:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did say that they were caught in the crossfire, didn't I? Some of them joined the OAS (despite the fact that its members hated everyone, Muslims, Jews, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but if the reality is that half of Jews in Algeria were on the side of the OAS and half were on the side of the Algerian nationalists, that still, again, doesn't mean that there couldn't have been Jewish victims of anti-Jewish attacks from either the French colonists, or their Muslim neighbors. It's also possible that the relations changed and cooled or worsened over time and that antisemitism was less of an issue the further back you go in history, or that it's unclear, or depends on the geography. All of this belongs in the article and it's not UNDUE. Andre🚐 22:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- At that time, being neutral wasn't an option. People, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, had to choose a side and anyone who didn't ended up being a victim of one or the other. It's a complicated history that unfortunately is being presented in a simplistic manner. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but if the reality is that half of Jews in Algeria were on the side of the OAS and half were on the side of the Algerian nationalists, that still, again, doesn't mean that there couldn't have been Jewish victims of anti-Jewish attacks from either the French colonists, or their Muslim neighbors. It's also possible that the relations changed and cooled or worsened over time and that antisemitism was less of an issue the further back you go in history, or that it's unclear, or depends on the geography. All of this belongs in the article and it's not UNDUE. Andre🚐 22:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did say that they were caught in the crossfire, didn't I? Some of them joined the OAS (despite the fact that its members hated everyone, Muslims, Jews, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Whataboutism of this kind is far from WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter who had moral superiority in this conflict in retrospect. All this section is supposed to accomplish is to explain why there were 130,000 Algerian Jews in about 1950 but practically zero today. Not mentioning other atrocities from the Algerian War is not minimizing any of it, it's just keeping focus on what this article (or rather section) is about. --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- 130,000 Jews were repatriated (meaning, they went home with the rest of the Pieds-Noirs). M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most of them did leave for France, as the section explains (which, interestingly enough, was a sentence you wanted to see removed as "speculation"). Although "went home" would be the wrong choice of words, given the Algerian Jewish presence predated the French colonization; the majority was of 15th-century Iberian-Sephardic origin, if not older. France was neither their "home" nor destination of choice. --bender235 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you have another definition for the word "repatriation" please present it. France was most definitely their destination of choice. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I can't speak for any of them individually, but I would presume if given the choice they would have preferred to stay put in the country of their ancestors, Algeria. But that's neither here nor there. --bender235 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to assume that they didn't open up a catalog and say, hmm, where shall I book cruise tickets. They went where they could. Andre🚐 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- They went with those they sided with (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) to the country that they fought for (that's a choice that they made). Some stayed (that's another choice that they could have made). M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Staying was clearly not an option for most. And in any case, if Algerian Jews "went home to France" as you insist, then I presume Vietnamese boat people went "home to the US" after the Fall of Saigon. --bender235 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- They went with those they sided with (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) to the country that they fought for (that's a choice that they made). Some stayed (that's another choice that they could have made). M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to assume that they didn't open up a catalog and say, hmm, where shall I book cruise tickets. They went where they could. Andre🚐 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I can't speak for any of them individually, but I would presume if given the choice they would have preferred to stay put in the country of their ancestors, Algeria. But that's neither here nor there. --bender235 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you have another definition for the word "repatriation" please present it. France was most definitely their destination of choice. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most of them did leave for France, as the section explains (which, interestingly enough, was a sentence you wanted to see removed as "speculation"). Although "went home" would be the wrong choice of words, given the Algerian Jewish presence predated the French colonization; the majority was of 15th-century Iberian-Sephardic origin, if not older. France was neither their "home" nor destination of choice. --bender235 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- 130,000 Jews were repatriated (meaning, they went home with the rest of the Pieds-Noirs). M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- According to the book source just added by bender, Jews were split roughly between the Algerian nationalists and the OAS. This isn't my area of expertise, but that is what the book says [3] Andre🚐 22:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Were those Jews a majority and did they leave leave with the Nazis? No, so no point in comparing apples to oranges. Also, I'm not talking about all of them, nor am I stating anything that isn't easily sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- And some Jews took the sides of the Nazis too. They are called kapos or self-hating Jews. But we don't paint an entire group with the brush of some of the members. We have to report and reflect on all of it, including some contradictions in terms that do exist in reality sometimes. Andre🚐 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Except that the Jews in this instance took the side of the oppressor, with some of them even joining the OAS. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are we really WP:GODWINing now? I would indeed say that if there was an article about the deaths of Romani Holocaust, that it would be inappropraite to say, "why are we talking about Romani deaths, that was a drop in the ocean, the real victims are Jews." Andre🚐 22:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Would you say the same thing when talking about the holocaust? M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV says that oppressor, victim, sides, etc., need to be made very dry and boring. I feel an emotional content coming from you in statements like,
- I never said they made the wrong choice, but the fact that they chose the side of the oppressor is easily attributed to RS, there is nothing personal about that. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter whether we think today Algerian Jews made the right choice or deserve any sympathy; your statement is inappropriately personalizing the historical events. The question is if any reliable secondary sources described the events in 1930 or 1960 as antisemitic. If and only if the sources say that, we can also say that. Andre🚐 22:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Antisemitism (a new word that is stuck everywhere) had nothing to do with it. The Algerian Jews were first and foremost French who were caught in the crossfire. At some point, they made their bed by choosing the side of the oppressors and consequently, they left with them (despite everything the French had done to them). M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I don't quite follow your logic about the word "antisemitic" being anachronistic for events in 1930 or 1960. Even if the word itself is of modern origin, it can be used in an encyclopedic context as part of the general description for historical events. Just for an analogy: the Battle of Cannae is described as an innovative use of the "double envelopment tactic" despite that being, of course, a word/concept unknown to both Romans and Carthaginians. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think you both have a valid point. Antisemitism is a modern word - they didn't have a word for antisemitism in the early 1800s. But there was still anti-Jewish and antisemitic activity before there was a word for it. So we should be careful about attributing antisemitism to all pre-modern anti-Jewish activities. And I agree with bender235 that the Algerian synagogue destruction might be relevant, so it shouldn't be removed, but the NYT article is a WP:PRIMARY source so we should find a more reliable secondary source to support it. UNDUE, however, is not the right policy to cite here. Andre🚐 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- And @Bender235, thanks for that edit, which is constructive IMHO. I'm not saying you need to remove the primary source, but the interpretation should come from the WP:BESTSOURCES study. Ideally you can add both sources in a WP:REFBUNDLE cite. Andre🚐 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)