Talk:Edict of Expulsion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two Sides to Every Story

The article admits that "Jews acquired a reputation as extortionate money lenders" but then tells the story entirely from the Jewish POV. Did the Jewish money lenders charge oppressive rates of interest and take undue advantage of unfortunate borrowers? If so, expulsion may be been a drastic and unnecessary remedy, but lending reform may have been indicated, and, in any event, the general dislike of the moneylenders would not be totally unjustified.

The article should also discuss the following issues: (1) Why, after more than 350 years of exclusion, did England find it advisable to permit the Jews to return, and (2) why did the Jews think that returning would be in their best interest?

John Paul Parks (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is very anti-gentile, biased and inaccurate in several important details. It appears to be a mish-mash of confused ideas taken from other Wiki entries. The reference, for instance, to Blood Libels states that "In frequent cases of blood libel, Jews were falsely said to hunt for children to murder before Passover so they could use their blood to make matzah.[7]" This matzoh business only arose in the 19th Century in Russia and in the middle East and has no place in Medieval England. Accusations that Jews sacrificed Christian children at passover were initiated by Jewish converts to Christianity.Gaptech (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

utter rubbish, Gaptech - " It first emerged in medieval Europe in the 12th century and was revived sporadically in eastern and central Europe throughout the medieval and modern periods, often leading to the persecution of Jews. " - this is from Britannica, but there are virtually hundreds of history books stating the same. Your statement is false.50.111.23.84 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Error?

While reading the article I believe that I have found an error or something that would not make much sense to anyone at all, which would of course leave them with more questions than answers on this particular subject. Since I am not very educated on the subject perhaps someone better versed in the subject matter can fix this...

The WIKI article says "In 1218, England became the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge.[7]"

However later on it links to the Statute of Usury in 1275 an article that would seem to contradict the claims on the page it links from (explusion, 1218; badges) that the Jews were required to wear a 'marking badge'.

So what is going on? Were Jews required to wear the badge in 1218 or 1275? Or was it simply not 'enforced' strictly until 1275? Orasis 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, since the dates are confused, perhaps the story is apocryphal? Sources are needed. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone of article

The article has rather an informal tone. Unusual Cheese 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the smooth expulsion???

quote "The expulsion process went fairly smoothly" - come on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.220.25 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Goose

Goosey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.93.217 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"antisemitic myths such as the Wandering Jew and ritual murders originated and spread throughout England, as well as Scotland and Wales" - Can we get some specific information relating to Scotland and Wales please. I don't think there were (m)any Jews living in Scotland in this period. English historians are unhelpful by referring to Britain when they mean England all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.40.105 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

less than 1%?

The article says that less than 1% were Jews - around 3,000 people. That implies that there were over 300,000 inhabitants in England. In fact, according to this page, there were 3,000,000. Shouldn't it be changed to something more accurate? Like "around 0.1%" were Jews? Malick78 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it and cited the population number. Icegrommet (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusion of dates

"The first major step towards expulsion took place in 1275, with the Statute of Jewry." -- yet the "Statute of Jewry" entry says that it was passed in 1253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Add to series

Why this article is not in the Antisemithism series as the Alhambra Decree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.57.112.148 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support that. Please register IP, or it won't happen. If you feel that strongly, get registered and we can do something about it. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wandering Jew

The story of the Wandering Jew is not an "antisemitic myth". It was an old tale, filmed many times - including by a Jewish film company.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Filmed"? Not sure what you were trying to say. And yes, it is considered an anti-semitic idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.23.84 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"This created a vacuum in the economy of Europe that Jews filled due to extreme discrimination in every other economic area;"

Is this true? Galactotron (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a source that claims the English authorities tried to get Jews to do other work, but they refused. Were they banned from farming or artisan work? What is the source? Galactotron (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Law still in force?

Is it true that this law is actually still on the books, but not enforced? 2601:8C:4102:1210:2425:B285:1EE5:E72 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of ancient laws still on the books in the UK, I also wonder if this is one of them? 2601:8C:4500:480:8047:CE50:3DCF:F972 (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not in force, because that's not how the English legal system works. Laws don't (generally) get repealed explicitly, they get overridden by later legislation. If a later law allowed Jews into the country again then the Edict of Expulsion is de-facto repealed, since the newer legislation replaces it. There is no need to actually repeal the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.65.172 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edict of Expulsion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926204524/http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/search_results.jsp?searchType=1&pageNum=1&search=england&searchOpt=0 to http://jewishencyclopedia.com/search_results.jsp?searchType=1&pageNum=1&search=england&searchOpt=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible image

Expulsion_judios-en.svg

This image lacks arrows, and the color coding is inconsistent between the areas in the map and the text at lower left (which also is so small that the exact color is hard to discern). Thus, the directions of the expulsions are not clear. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, Mikael Häggström. The coloured lines clearly come from the country of similar colour and go elsewhere. I can read the text fine, even on my very small screen and without my glasses. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I can read read the text "areas of expulsion" too, but the hue of the color of this text is not the same as the areas. It seems to be the same as the the text overlying those areas, but for example a notation that "black text" is the reference system would specify this. Regarding the lines, there is no green line connecting to Tunis, and no red connecting to the Papal States, and likewise no line of the same color through the Mediterranean for Germany and Hungary. These lines are of different color than the area, and at the same time the text color seems to denote that these are areas of expulsion, which is contradictory. Still, it's clear enough for England, so I'm reinserting it here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've invited Ecelan, the creator of the map, to visit here to help us. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish original was updated some time ago. --Ecelan (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think it's more accurate with the arrows, so I now replaced the English version with a translation of the Spanish version. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Expulsions of Jews in Europe from 1100 to 1600

Ecelan, Mikael Häggström, great joint working. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You too Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dweller, thank you for bringing us together. --Ecelan (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

1290! 1290! 1290! wherefore art thou therein listed proofs?

Wherefrom indeed is this 1290 date gotten? One sees nowt listed backing up the aforesaid 1290 date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.168.203 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have a serious question about the article's validity, then use some sense when you post and stop coming off sounding goofy. Also, SIGN your posts with four tildas! 50.111.23.84 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Planned apology

Planned apology says:

In July 2021, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announced that the Church of England would in 2022 offer a formal “act of repentance”, on the 800th anniversary of the Synod of Oxford, which passed a set of laws that restricted Jews’ rights to engage with Christians in England that led to the expulsion of 1290. Historically, the Synod predated Church of England’s creation in 1534.

The last sentence in that section implies some irrelevance in the planned apology, as if the Church of England is unrelated to the Catholic Church of 1222 England.

Although the Synod of Oxford predated the Church of England by over 200 years, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury predated the Synod by almost 700 years. Besides, the Church of England was not newly formed in 1534—it was the direct continuation of the Catholic Church in England in its entirety, unaltered in any way (at first) except with the king as its head instead of the pope. Since it was an archbishop of Canterbury (Stephen Langton) who convened the Synod of Oxford in 1222, it is entirely appropriate that the act of repentance be made by his direct successor, the current archbishop, in 2022.

Therefore, I'm adding to that sentence so that the section now reads:

In July 2021, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announced that the Church of England would in 2022 offer a formal "act of repentance", on the 800th anniversary of the Synod of Oxford in 1222, which passed a set of laws that restricted Jews' rights to engage with Christians in England and eventually led to the expulsion of 1290. Historically, the Synod predated the Church of England's creation in 1534, but the Archbishopric of Canterbury dates to before AD 600.

I've also copyedited the section. —8.9.93.141 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Needs more sources

or better sources for the details here. They are too modern so they have a modern bias. This article is about a very old historical event. To comply with WPs neutrality policy, need to find an older source that's reliable. I copied the text in question.

"Economically, Jews played a key role in the country. The Church then strictly forbade the lending of money for profit, creating a vacuum in the economy of Europe that Jews filled because of extreme discrimination in every other economic area, as Jews were prohibited from practicing any art or craft, which were under the monopoly of Christian guilds.[6] Canon law was not considered applicable to Jews, and Judaism does not forbid loans with interest between Jews and non-Jews.[7] Taking advantage of their unique status as his direct subjects, the King could appropriate Jewish assets in the form of taxation. He levied heavy taxes on Jews at will, without having to summon Parliament."[8] 2601:601:51A:D1A:30DC:F336:5C68:7BD2 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)