Talk:Jews and the slave trade

Jewish history Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The two articles should be merged into one. Marokwitz (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Curaçao

The name Curaçao should be spelled with a cedilla. JamesBrownIsDead (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]