Talk:Jews and the slave trade/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Curaçao

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

Thanks for pointing that out. When the page gets un-protected I'll make the improvement, if no one has beat me to it. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is just NOI propaganda

This article is Nation of islam racist crap. Jews were a tiny, virtually insignificant part of the total slave trade. Where is the article on "Anglicans and the Slave Trade" or "Catholics and the Slave Trade"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The article already has a large amount of "rebuttal" information that counters the claims made by the NOI, including quotes from about a dozen notable scholars. The lead paragraph reflects the "balancing" opinions quite accurately. To add a POV tag, you need to be a bit more specific, such as identifying some wording that is biased; or pointing out material that is missing from the article; or identifying un-sourced material that is biased, etc. That way other editors can have some guidance on how to remedy the POV shortcomings. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a little confused. Given the opening paragraph, why does this article exist? The lead clearly lays out that any connection between the Jewish people or religion is non-notable and had no major impact.

"...it is now clear that Jews did not dominate the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas,[2][3] and that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[2][3][4][5] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades."

NPOV or not, why is this an article here? Joe407 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is here because there are several scholarly works on this topic (see the list in the article). Since scholars are studying this topic and writing about it, it meets the WP:Notability requirement. You might have a point if no scholars wrote on this topic. But they do. If you think the article is not accurately representing what the scholars are saying, point out the specific problem area so other editors can work to remedy the problem. --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

Jehochman: Thanks for pointing out that a couple of paragraphs need citations. I'm 99.9% sure that text accurately represents what the secondary sources say, but give me a couple of weeks to hunt down the sources. I think some of those assertions are (either explicitly or implicitly) detailed in the following subsections. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

percentage of jewish population involved in slavery of black africans

What most of the sources imply is that the percentage of the jewish population involved in black african slavery was much larger than the percentage of whites involved in black african slavery. Since all history textbooks unfairly blame the entire population of white people for the enslavement of blacks even if only a few white people were involved with in it, it is not so unjust to blame all jews for there part in the slavery of black africans since they were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do the sources imply that? And where do history textbooks do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with this

Do you think this tone should be in the LEDE, I really prefer if you edit it since you have more experience here than me. I would also suggest using reference for Curacoa and Suriname . I think the evidence should speak without the sections i have placed in bold.

In the 1490s, the Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, at the same time that trade with the New World was opening up, leading to their participation in Atlantic trading in general, and the Atlantic slave trade in particular. Jewish participation in the slave trade was in Brazil, Curacao, Suriname, and Rhode Island, but otherwise was modest or minimal, and Jews had virtually no role in the slave trading of England or France. The Anti-Jewish organization Nation of Islam published The Secret Relation between Blacks and Jews in 1991, which asserted that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade

and This statement has nothing to do with this topic. It might work better here antisemitism

In modern times, American Jews have been very active in fighting prejudice and discrimination, and have historically been active participants in civil rights movements, including active support of and participation in the black civil rights / desegregation movement.

--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede just summarizes the article, which already has all this information in it. If you have any specific objections to article content, please outline them here, making sure you refer to policies and reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede or not it needs references not creative writing see wikipedia tone and references required. Please do not remove tags without a proper discussion. All content needs references and professional tone without bias, is that something new? see [WP:NOR] and WP:TONE Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles. The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not need references, and there's nothing wrong with the tone. In fact, in my last FA I was forced to remove all references from the lede simply because people object to references in the lede. Also, you haven't articulated any specific issues with the material, but merely with what the reliable sources say on the topic. You also blindly reverted all copyedits. If you have any specific issue with the way the material is written as it relates to policy please articulate it here, rather than re-tagging. If you disruptively re-add the tags rather than actually discussing issues, I'll be forced to deal with this in a much more serious venue. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Direct me to the page that says no references need in the lede? Thanks. And leave the pointless threats at home. What serious venue are you discussing, you are an editor on wikipedia--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much that the lead doesn't need references as that the references that support the lead don't have to be actually in the lead. So if material in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article, is referenced elsewhere, than an inline citation in the lead isn't necessary. And contentious material in the lead should certainly be in the article with references. A more serious venue than this might be WP:ANI, although there are others and I don't know what Jayjg has in mind. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then take me to this serious venue, If you said the sky is blue okay. But some serious statements need references. Now reference exist everywhere else on wiki ledes. I am reading the lede, like others. Most do that, they do not want to search deep inside the guts of an article to figure out "Where does that come from". So if the info is true then produce the reliable sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the seven most recent Featured Articles: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), The Temple at Thatch, Temple of Eshmun, Hurricane Kyle (2002), Little Thetford, Lions (album). Featured Articles are the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, and have been carefully edited to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Note that none of them have citations in their ledes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ, what in the lead is not sourced in the rest of the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why did you remove in this edit: "The book's thesis was that Jews played a major role in the Atlantic slave trade, and the book supported that thesis with numerous quotations from scholarly works, including Arnold Wiznitzer and Marc Lee Raphael." ? And why did you change it from "which documented involvement" to "alleged that Jews dominated" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the broad topic of Jews and the slave trade, not that specific book, and it was far too much detail for the lede anyway; why mention those specific individuals, for example? As for why I changed "documented" to "alleged", the fact that every serious review of the book has shown it to be a polemical work of pseudo-scholarship should be more than enough to answer your question, but in any event see WP:NPOV as to why "documented", which implies that the source is accurate and undisputed, is not appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Trim the lead

I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are somewhat clunky and redundant with the body of the article. Would anybody mind if I trimmed them out? --GHcool (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:Lead suggests that the lead paragraphs should summarize the entire article. Parags 2 and 3 have some important points from the body. You say the lead "paragraphs are somewhat ... redundant with the body of the article", but that is to be expected in the lead, by definition. On the other hand, I agree the lead paragrs could be improved wording-wise. --Noleander (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless anyone gives a reasonable objection in the next day or two, I'm going to replace the current Paragraphs 2 and 3 with this text: "During the 1490s, trade with the New World began to open up. At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of in Atlantic, including the Atlantic slave trade. Recent scholarship shows that Jewish involvement in the slave trade was minimal and comparable to other groups of slave-traders such as the English." --GHcool (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I object. WP:Lead indicates that the lead should summarize all the major points of the article. The text you are suggesting is dropping several important points. What, exactly, is your goal? Do you feel the lead is too large? Or do you feel the lead contains some material that is not significant? My impression is that the lead is not especially large; and that all the material currently in the lead is significant (relative to the content of this article, considered as a whole). Again, I have no objection to improving the wording, or of consolidating similar sentences. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What important points do you think will be dropped? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Still answering questions with questions?  :-) Please respond to my questions first. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about length than I am with readability. At present, the lead is rather clunky and difficult to read with ease. --GHcool (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, sure, readability is important. But why did you delete the material about the Nation of Islam book? This article probably would not exist if it were not for that book and the research it spurred. Also, I added some sentences that summarize the " Jewish slave ownership in the southern United States" section and the "Abolition debate" section. --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've summarized those sentences down to one, because your material violated WP:UNDUE and WP:WORLDVIEW. It was about one small region of the U.S., and wasn't particularly about the slave trade anyway - debates between rabbis about slavery aren't the slave trade. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't asked me any questions, but I've asked you one. Please respond to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Modern Times" section?

I"m wondering if the Modern Times section should be merged into the African-American – Jewish relations article. The section seems to have little to do with Slavery, and the other article is exactly about that material. Maybe the section could just be reduced to a small summary, with links to the other article? --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Morris Jacob Raphall

Chesdovi: The sources are quite clear that Morris Jacob Raphall argued in favor of slavery, as found in the South, and based his arguments on the approval of slavery in the bible. Yes, Raphall, was personally opposed to slavery, but he and Einhorn did engage in a public debate on the matter, with Einhorn taking the anti-slavery view, and Raphall taking the pro-slavery view (and his motives, apparently, were primarily to save the union)). I'm open to improved wording that clarifies all that. --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Raphall, in his position, felt a moral need to respond to what he felt were perversions of the bible being used by abolitionists. He made a succinct distinction, albeit "minor", to ancient slavery and the southern slavery. So much so, that this clause was once requested to be censored by some in the audience. It is clear from the source that his sermon did not explicitly support the continuation of slavery, but was rather used by the apologists. Raphall was indeed "proslavery", as the bible prescribes, but his sermon did not endorse its southern manifestation. Is there a response by Raphall to his critics, it being called a "debate"? Maybe a subsequent response by him would shed further light. Chesdovi (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Raphall was vigorously attacked by other rabbis, including Einhorn and Michael Heilprin, because Raphall provided support to Southerners, by arguing that the Bible endorsed slavery. However, I dont see any mention of a response from Raphall. The word "debate" is used by several secondary sources, including This Land of Liberty: A History of America's Jews (pp 90-92) has a good summary of the "debate" (albeit it is a text book). See also What Went Wrong?: The Creation & Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance p 25 which also uses the word "debate". What this article needs to capture is that there was a debate within U.S. Jewry in the middle of the 19th century: for and against slavery. Sources indicate that rabbis took sides, more or less based on whether they lived North or South. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Scapegoat the Dutch

Can it be included that the jews use the Dutch as a scapegoat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if you haven't got any reliable sources to back up such claims, claims which frankly sounds more like soapboxing than actual article improvement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ADL vs. Farrakhan

Don't get me wrong: I'm against slavery (my Jewish ancestors were slaves in Egypt for 430 years), but what I don't see is why the ADL calls Louis Farrakhan "anti-semitic" for declaring that Jews were involved in the slave trade.

1. Is there controversy (other than between the ADL and Farrakhan) over whether Jews ever:
   • bought and sold slaves
   • owned slave ships used in the Atlantic slave trade?
2. Do scholars anywhere agree that Jews were involved in the slave trade, or is it just Farrakhan claiming this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Have you read this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg. Sometimes your intuition is shockingly accurate. I didn't read the article until just now. I gather the main objection of historians and scholars is that Farrakhan exaggerates the Jewish role. But the ADL seems to regard any mention of Jews owning, selling or transporting slaves as utterly false. Other scholars merely say basically that we were no more involved than anyone else.

So I think a little clarification would still be in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This article (correctly, I believe) asserts that Farrakhan's view on Jews and the slave trade is distorted. But the question for Wikipedia is not whether Farrakhan is right or wrong; that would involve taking a stance.

We should describe the historical or scholarly controversy over the degree Jews were involved in owning or selling slaves "fairly" but without taking sides. Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade.

The reader should not come away from the article with the idea that Wikipedia disagrees with NOI's extremist views. Rather, they should be able to tell all and sundry which scholars disagree with Farrakhan and why. We are not writing an authoritative encyclopedia; we merely report what authoritative sources say. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The last page for anything NPOV is this one . I wonder why, I guess it must be something in the water. What the straw man will do is A. take one thing out of context and refute it (or pretend they are refuting it) and then based on that so-called refutation debunk everything Farrakhan said. I would direct the user to [Tony Martin on Jews and slavery now this is where it gets funny, despite being an article on a controversial issue, only the Jewish sources and cites are listed. God knows what Tony and Louis actually said. Strange that I am not sure Tony ever said "Jews were the majority slavers but that is what all the fuss seems to be about". What about the other things? um. And why are those few things that mentioned only using Jewish sources. OH my bad. Only Jewish sources are reliable my bad I forgot - Blacks are not a reliable source.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, do you have any specific issues with the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as stated above: Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's just a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Scholars and historians consider this these to be refuted; thus the views of religious leaders like Farrakhan and his followers aren't relevant, per WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. Now that that is cleared up, I'll remove the tag again. Glad I could help! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Start with the Washed out damage control Lead

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 WP:LEADThe lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Now WHAT IS THE TOPIC? So why doesn't the lead service the topic? Why is the lead an ADL damage control statement? This article is not about Jews and Middle ages Slavery so why is it talking about it. How is that NPOV? Question why doesn't the Islam and slavery have such a warm and cuddly lead? I would put a tag buy someone will delete it. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As before, you must have a specific issue, you cannot just tag. Is it the words "Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors" that bother you? If not, what specific problem do you see? Making broad and non-factual claims such as "Why is the lead an ADL damage control statement?" is not helpful; the lead currently has 8 references, of which only one is to an ADL source. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One sided Source which support POV and do damage control

Zero balance or display of counter arguments. "most scholars refuse everything NOI is saying about Jews and slavery" (most meaning a bunch of White people and maybe Henry Louis Gates) what about the numerous African scholars? Apart from the inability of other editors to add constructive edits, (tags are being removed by admins) despite this being a violation of Wiki policy. If any editor has an issue with a pages balance then it is proper to add tags. No one should have to use the talk page before adding tags - we are not children with some hierarchy. The article is seriously one-sided. It attacks arguments but those things it attacks are not presented (NOI is wrong and we all say so)- no sources from NOI in any balanced way to know what they are so "wrong" about. It also only uses "friendly" references from defenders of the POV. I..e pro-Jewish sources, despite being a controversial issue with NOI , Farrakhan and Tony Martin and other Africans being involved not one reference (or position) from these people is represented with any balance. Such references have been labelled not reliable but they are "reliable" enough to be critiqued! and only the critique given not what is being critiqued. It is white washed and damage control. which misrepresents the plethora of arguments NO et al have produced. And this article is about Jews enslaving Africans, yet no African voices like Molefi Asante, John Henrik Clarke etc. All references and comments come from one side.

Where is the brief, neutral statement of the issue required by WP:RfC? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I second the question. What are you proposing? Do you truly think that Louis Farrakhan is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your question is too general. All that concerns us at the moment is this article, and NOI / Farrakhan is presenting a significant minority view. In fact, there's even an article about their book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I third it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the "brief neutral statement" is in the first paragraph of this section:

• The article is seriously one-sided. It attacks arguments but those things it attacks are not presented (NOI is wrong and we all say so)- no sources from NOI in any balanced way to know what they are so "wrong" about. It also only uses "friendly" references from defenders of the POV. I..e pro-Jewish sources, despite being a controversial issue with NOI , Farrakhan and Tony Martin and other Africans being involved not one reference (or position) from these people is represented with any balance. Such references have been labelled not reliable but they are "reliable" enough to be critiqued! and only the critique given not what is being critiqued. It is white washed and damage control.

Is this plain enough, or do I need to make a summary of it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Jewish sources"? That's conspiracy talk. Scholars and historians consider this these to be refuted; thus the views of religious leaders like Farrakhan and his followers can't be put on a par with scholarship, or even compared in an equivalent way, per WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. If you feel any specific sentence is at issue, please explain why, using reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Request. Could whoever is arguing that this article is currently wrong please summarize their position with a list of supporting citations (source names, publisher, page numbers, etc)? I don't have time to search around the talk page trying to find it. Otherwise, I and perhaps other, uninvolved editors won't be able to give an opinion. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments above. Wikip articles have to be based on reliable scholars. If you are using wackjobs for "balance", it's no good. As for the article attacking "arguments but those things it attacks are not presented", does it not say "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews ... alleged that Jews dominated the North Atlantic slave trade." Sounds like representation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Christian enslavement on the Barbary Coast relevant to this article?

I just read an RS last month (Hebb, Piracy and the English Government) about the Barbary corsairs in which it noted that Jews (Sicilian Jews, if I remember right) were indispensable to English authorities as brokers in ransoming Christian slaves held in North Africa back to freedom. It leads to an interesting ambiguity; on the one hand, these Jews were instrumental to the liberation of thousands of Christian slaves, but on the other hand they helped the English to enrich the Barbary slavers and provide incentive to capture more slaves. Does this belong in the article, or is it limited to the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Pirate Dan (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds applicable to the scope of this article, if reliably sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll add the information after I have a chance to drop by the library and pick the book up again. Pirate Dan (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What book is "Drescher: JANCAST"?

What is the full title of the book "Drescher: JANCAST" and what is it's ISBN? If it is not provided I will delete the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the article carefully, particularly the "References" section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jodensavanne

Slavery took place here, it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Like their Christian and Muslim neighbors, Jews owned slaves and participated in the slave trade. --This article is not about Christian or Muslim slave trade. It is about the Jewish slave trade. The introduction should be rewritten. The intro pretty much says "Well everyone else was doing it."

"The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab World." "The Jewish slave trade was the practice etc etc...."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

== This article needs a rewrite ==

"Jacob Lewis" should read "Jacob Levin"

There is an image used of an ad for a slave auction, reprinted in Stowe's "Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin." In the image, the auctioner is named as Levin, but the caption says Lewis. The other footnote, besides to Stowe, cites "Jews and the American Slave Trade" by Saul Friedman. This source, too, gives the surname as Levin. (Google books)

Can't edit because it's semi-protected and I don't have an account.

Just passing through, no comment on anything controversial :)!!! --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.182.15 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out the error. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in the Ottoman empire

There is one major section missing, Jewish slave owning in the Ottoman Empire.

As chronicled in various reports and official ordinances, the acquisition of slaves was widespread in the upper-class Jewish community. Within this community, slavery was commonly limited to females who would be capable of performing household services, including sexual ones. Most of the Ottoman Turkish sources are silent about the particular duties of the slaves in the household, however the Hebrew sources shed light on the role of the slave in the Ottoman Jewish household. Before being allowed to work, the slave in a Jewish household had to be taught not only basic household skills but also the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut, among other Jewish practices. These slaves needed to master the cultural skills of both the secular world and the Jewish world that they would find themselves immersed in. These questions addressed to in the form of response(rabbinic rulings) as well as other printed halachic works in which the Rabbis struggled to negotiate and find balance with the Halachic problems that arose from the practice of slavery with the practices of the society in which they lived.

To avoid Halachic issues some slaves were converted upon arrival into their Jewish household, however this was not as simple a solution as would be presumed. If the slave was converted, while she would be allowed to prepare food, she would not be allowed to perform tasks on Shabbat. As such it was often preferable for the slave to remain non-Jewish. However, a slave no converted would only be allowed to perform work at their own will on Shabbat. It was therefore necessary for the slave to know the details of Jewish law in order to perform their job in a manner that was most beneficial to the family. Yet, the issue that troubled the Rabbis most was that of the owners “right to sexual intercourse with the slave". This practice, which was common among Muslim slave owners, was understood by the Rabbi’s to be a societal norm that they did not have full dominion over; moreover it was an issue that Halacha and biblical stories spoke very differently about. The Rabbis understood that sexual relations with a slave could lead to various halachic infractions, including the breaking of laws of neida-the laws of menstrual separation- and the law against cohabitating with a non-Jewish woman. While they could not fully prevent sexual transgressions the Rabbis issued rulings that prescribe mild punishments in addition to making clear in their writings that the sin was a grave offense whose sentence would be decreed in Heaven. Abbrickman (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I've removed the material you added as it had no reliable sources by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, as jewish criteria is not the only one here on wikipedia. though perhaps on the israeli one, which is jewish. instead a non biased source can be used instead. or is there any specific reason in wp:RS where you find his sources incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Abbrickman has been blocked as a puppetmaster. RS is not the default. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that 109.225.100.148 is from Sweden, which is the most Judeophobic country in Europe after Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is 114 still allowed to edit this page?

calling Sweden a Judeophobic country, using words like "Neo nazi" in an edit page but if you go to his contributions you can see he is anti-Islam.

why is someone with such a clear and evident bias allowed any say here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone correct the first paragraph of this article?

This first paragragh needs to have to be correted. The part "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." is incorrect. The jewish population was already heavily involved in the enslavement of black africans before they were expelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

hm should there be upper or lower paragraph countering some statement in this article? so it does seem that jews where the majority of slave owners after all. the pro-jewish sources seems extremely unreliable in this case. they are not neccesary anti-non semetic/anti-non jewish/anti-gentile, but it does seems like they defend slavery and try to hide it. according to the Jewish writer and scholar Solomon Grayzel in “A History of the Jews” "Jews were among the most important slave dealers” in European society."

There should perhaps be some rabbi who, like christian priests, apologize for their role in the slave trade. is there any source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.148 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is just a Judeophobic lie. The truth is that Muslims were the biggest slave dealers, so the Nation of Islam has no one to blame but themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that it is a "Judeophobic lie" ?

because "A history of the Jews" by Solomon Grayzel is a real book.

your bias and personal investment in this issue is transparent and overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory? What?

That part should be removed, this article is not discussing whether Jews dominated the slave trade, that could be a conspiracy theory, this article is simply talking about Jews being part of it for a long time, that's not a conspiracy theory that's a fact of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.214.157 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly did Jews begin "trade on the Atlantic, including slave trade"?

The current lead includes the following text: "At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. As a result, Jews began participating in all sorts of trade on the Atlantic, including the slave trade." Is there strong support for the assertion that Jews only began participating in trade on the Atlantic BECAUSE they were expelled from Iberia? It seems to me that trade would have existed before the expulsion due to Jews being part of the mercantile trade between Iberia and Africa and that any participation of Jews in transAtlantic trade would have been a natural corollary to the development of that trade after the voyages of Columbus, the first of which occurred in 1492. In brief, I am not aware of an argument that says that Jews began participating in "trade on the Atlantic" specifically BECAUSE of the expulsions from Iberia. I would think that the participation in "trade on the Atlantic" continued DESPITE their having been expelled from Iberia.

I am no expert in this area so I could be wrong. I'm just sharing my very uninformed gut reaction to the sentence. If I'm wrong, please let me know where I've gone off the rails.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

why: probably a very honorable selfless desicion? they had to, it hurt them more than it hurt the slaves? why dont we write it like that.

                 as an austrian, i want history about hitler, and my people, to be as exact as possible.
                 i want the records about jewish history just as accurate.
                 written in the same way, without excuses for things like a slavetrade.
                 they only did it because of blabla .. give me a break.
                 im aware of the dangers of my people, you be the same about yours!
                 peace

Title change

Many of the sources describe the minimal role that Jews played in the slave trade and dispute the allegations made by a few fringe sources. As such, the article title should reflect the weight of academic opinion and should be called Conspiracy theories about Jews and slavery, or something that intimates the peripheral Jewish involvement.

• Finkelman - All serious scholars consider this charge to be ludicrous...there were almost no Jews involved in the African slave trade
• Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer - ...the Jewish presence was minimal. No Jews could be traced in Europe's leading slave trade centres...In the United States, as in Britain, France and Holland the Jewish role in the slave trade was peripheral.
• Faber - "In no period did Jews play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades. They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean.
• David Brion Davis - Medieval Christians greatly exaggerated the supposed Jewish control over trade and finance and also became obsessed with alleged Jewish plots to enslave..it is clear that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery."
• Jacob R. Marcus - "The Jews of Newport seem not to have pursued the [slave trading] business consistently ... [When] we compare the number of vessels employed in the traffic by all merchants with the number sent to the African coast by Jewish traders ... we can see that the Jewish participation was minimal.
• Bertram W. Korn - None of the major slave-traders was Jewish, nor did Jews constitute a large proportion in any particular community.
• Junius P. Rodriguez - The historical rise and fall of slavery in the United States would not have been affectyed at all if there were no Jews in the South, and whatever minuscule part the Jews played...would have been more then compensated for by other non-Jewish whites
• Seymour Drescher - "The available evidence indicates that the Jewish network probably counted for little in Atlantic slaving." Ankh.Morpork 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere in your sources, that the word "conspiracy" is used. The article should be called what the majority of sources call the subject, and you haven't demonstrated that this is what they call it. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article is by large not a treatment of the conspiracy theory that Jews dominated slave trade. The article describes to what extent the jews were involved in slave trade in varies periods and geographies. As such the word "conspiracy" should be removed from the title. Andries (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The desire to use the word "conspiracy theory" seems to be an attempt to assert up-front in the article title that there is no substance to the assertion that Jews were predominant or even a major factor in European/African slave trading. Without personally weighing in on whether the assertion is true or false, I'd like to point out that the standard phrase for indicating the falsehood of such an assertion is to use the term "antisemitic canard" so that the title of this article would be changed to "Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard)". Of course, it would help if the article would provide more sourced evidence that this is considered an antisemitic canard. It is not sufficient to make a bunch of assertions that Jews were only somewhat involved in the slave trade. We need to find reliable sources that specifically state that it is an antisemitic canard to assert that Jews were predominant or even significant in the slave trade. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't such a source, don't we then need a source that says Jews were predominant or significant in the slave trade? Otherwise, "Jews and the slave trade" isn't a topic, it's a google search. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but untrue. There are multiple reliable sources regarding jews and the slave trade, also named as such. See the references in this article. Andries (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article title should reflect the weight of academic opinion that Jews had a miniscule role in the slave trade which is the leitmotif of the multiple reliable sources that you refer to. Most of these sources were written to dispel the antisemitic canard predominantly propounded by the Nation of Islam and has been described as such by Saul Friedman in Jews and the American Slave Trade (p 250- 254) and Henry Louis Gates in Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars among other scholars. The context of the sources is a rebuttal of this canard, and this article, if it is to exist, should reflect this. I agree that changing it to Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) might be preferable. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Conspiracy theories" is the best title. Not every myth is a conspiracy theory. Marokwitz (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Jews and the slave trade (antisemitic canard) → Jews and the slave trade – We have consensus on the Talk page [1] to change the title back to what it was two months ago, so it shouldn't be a controversial change. However, I can't make the change myself because an article with the original title still exists as a redirect to the current title. So if an Administrator could make the change that would be great. Kai Carver (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By opening a requested move discussion the way you did, I think you may have invited an additional seven days of discussion before the move can be made. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, and maybe it was a mistake, but this is why I did it that way:

1. the instructions for technical move request [2] say don't make technical move request if:

* There has been any past debate about the best title for the page

* Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

2. it's been 2 months, surely the rename can wait another week.

--Kai Carver (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the discussion above. Marokwitz (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support As I wrote above: "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) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Saddhiyama--Kimdime (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Saddhiyama. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Saddhiyama. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support; Saddhiyama puts it more neatly than I ever could. bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

It should be noted that 99.232.122.72 is an admirer of a Swedish neo-Nazi political party[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.167.38 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)