Talk:Jews and the slave trade

Change the title back?

The current title "Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard)" doesn't make sense to me. The article covers a variety of information about "Jews and the slave trade", including the widely accepted view that it is a false statement to say that Jews had a disproportionately large role in the slave trade, and the additional view that such a statement is antisemitic. Since the article discusses all aspects of the factual involvement of Jews in the slave trade (since the Middle Ages), it's unnecessarily restrictive to include "(antisemitic canard)" in the title. It's also a bit misleading: "(antisemitic canard)" would make more sense attached to a title like "Major role of Jews in the slave trade" that is more obviously suspect of being false and/or antisemitic. --Kai Carver (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I propose to write in the summary that the view that jews were disproportionally much involved in the slave trade is an anti-semitic canard. Andthen remove anti-semitic canard out of the title (which was by the way an improvement over conspiracy theory in the title). Andries (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Changed as described by Andries. Much of the article contents, such as the Abolition debate, is unrelated to the current title. Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Change as described by Andries. Kai Carver (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Jews and the slave trade" is a neutral title for the subject at hand. There is simply no need for the "(antisemitic canard)" addition, especially so since the article also covers the actual historical (minimal) involvement of Jews in the slave trade. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

half if not more of the "sources" cited are themselves Jewish, the idea that they are a reliable source for information is almost as much of a joke as the discussion for this page.

and many of the Jewish sources acknowledge Jewish involvement however minimal, yet "antisemitic Canard" is still found in the title.

LOL

--Savakk (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The title makes sense to me. The Canard is the claim that Jews dominated the slave trade and slave ownership. Like "blood libel," it "could" refer to something vague if you took it out of context. But, in context, it is clear that is referring to the Nation of Islam popularizing false claim that Jews dominated the slave trade and slave ownership. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL@ the title

"(antisemitic Canard)"

How on earth was this allowed to be put up?

why are there no "canard" comments in the titles for articles relating to Christians/Muslims and slavery?

I assume it's for the same reason that racist comments by Rabbis are not allowed to be put up in Wikipedia pages and the criticism of Judaism section is 1/100th that of the criticisms of Christianity/Islam despite it being a much older faith with a lot of historical controversy.

this website is a joke.

--Savakk (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The title tells you everything you need to know about the content of the article. It is the first time i have seen a title like this on Wikipedia. But What worries me most is the editors, who have a duty to the fair play of Wikipedia being complicit in what is blatant POV agenda. What they do not realize is the title tells you in a flash the article is damage control and no good. The issue of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade is not a canard. Only the fact that they dominated. So if you want to discuss canards then the article should be Jewish domination in the slave trade (canard). But Jews and the slave trade does not need antisemitic. No more than Arab slave trade should be Arab Slave Trade (Islamophobic political agenda). Like i said most people who know the politics will look at the title and shake their head. And it tells you more about the editors.p.s. Not one single reference links to the opinions of these so-called antisemitic. (another worrying trend) a trial where only the prosecutor presents evidence.--Inayity (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

me: article needs to start with what was done. but it starts with how they have been falsely acused making even an article about jewish slaveowners, sound in their favour. no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.224.152 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

In an article this hotly disputed, this well patrolled and this well sourced; how does this line remain?

Later scholars would challenge Raphael's assessment of the extent of Jewish participation in the slave-trade.[citation needed]

If it can't be sourced within a week then it should be removed. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We can do better than citing "later scholars", we can give a cited retraction from the original author. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)