Talk:Jews and the slave trade

	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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination

Human rights

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights

Sociology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Why does the entire article start with this?

"Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors, Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade. In the middle ages, Jews were minimally involved in slave trade"

This is factually correct, but why is this the first line in the article? immediately downplaying what happened and shifting responsibility to people outside those mentioned in the article....

it immediately gives a narrative of "no big deal, everyone did it" and would never be accepted on a page regarding European/Black slavery.

it should be deleted completely and mentioned further on in the article, not in the first line of the first section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.122.72 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that 99.232.122.72 is an admirer of a Swedish neo-Nazi political party[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion on the Swedish Democrats have nothing to do with this bias and intentionally misleading article, my Anti-Islamic friend.

are you going to edit the first paragraph, and correct your intentional "error" or will I ?

I'm not convinced any of you should be doing this. Before the first paragraph is changed, let's see what people want it changed to. At the moment it seems ok, but the 2nd paragraph seems to violate WP:LEAD. There are 8 sections, and the Nation of Islam stuff is just a subection, yet has over 1/3 of the lead. That doesn't make much sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Nation of Islam's The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews even being cited in this article, never mind the lead? Are there any scholars that defend rather debunk that self-published work by a fringe group? The claim that it is somehow notable could also by used to coatrack in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (with a note that many scholars have debunked that too). If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be way down the article after all the serious stuff has been taken care of. AndroidCat (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I'd prefer to discuss this, rather than stepping on old sore toes. Why are some fringe of a fringe group's claims being used to coatrack a bunch of stuff into the lead of this article? AndroidCat (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this article, you'll see it was written originally to say that Jews were prominent in the salve trade. The text you're talking about is probably left over from then. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the OP. The whole page downplays the fact Jews took part and indeed Jewish-owned companies helped ship slaves to the States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.117.1 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me that it would be there at the start of the article. The "canard" that the page is talking about is the false accusation that Jews were somehow MORE involved in slavery than Non-Jews. So, it sounds relevant. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always trying to hide their crimes, calling people "antisemitic neo-nazi conspiracy nuts" when busted. Jews owned majority of slave ships. Jews did slavery in Congo under Leopold II, Jews did the Holodomor and the Gulags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.132.59 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not start with a denial of the topic which is supposed to be under neutral investigation. This just adds more fuel to the fire of the argument that Wiki is totally dominated by Jews. This question is not going away. People will give up on wiki if pages are seen to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWeisel (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support Change as described by Andries. Kai Carver (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

More reason not to trust Wikipedia. It's fairly obvious that the highest moderators are Jewish propogandists censoring truthful information using whatever manipulative rules and tactics they can forment. A loathesome site. Malv (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]