Talk:Maghrebi Jews

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danielmharris.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't?

Isn't Ladino considered a language of Moroccan Jews?Adam Holland 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Ladino that was used in Morocco came from the Jews who came from Spain. There were two or three different Jewish communities in Morocco. The Jews who came from Spain in the Middle Ages and later were considered a different community from the Moroccan Jews who had been there for a longer period of time.--EhavEliyahu 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made my question clearer. Since SOME Moroccan Jews were Sephardic (i.e. came there from Spain) and DID spoke Ladino, why not included it in the article alongside the more indigenous languages used by Jews?

Adam Holland 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A very major % of Moroccan Jews are Sephardic (not just "some") and in fact most of them adopted local Arabic when settling through the country except for those living in Tetuan and Tangiers and regions surrounded who kept a form of Ladino known as Haketia.

Interesting - please provide citation and source for article.Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The relationship with the Sunni Muslim majority has suffered in recent years

"The relationship with the Sunni Muslim majority has suffered in recent years". Is this true? Only if you assume it was better to begin with. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• It was certainly better to begin with. It went from having ups and downs to being almost untenable for any Jews to remain in these lands. There are a few left in Tunisia, and some in the Spanish possessions of Ceuta and Melilla, I imagine there are a few scattered holdouts elsewhere, but within living memory there were Jews in every city (and some other areas) throughout the Maghreb. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly better? That's a pretty bold assertion. From what I can tell, like was generally pretty grim for the Jews there until the European powers took over; then things got much better. Do you have a source for "certainly better"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Jay, the truth is, I don't care enough about this stub article to fight about it. If you want, just remove the paragraph. Eventually, someone (probably not me) will do the legwork to turn this stub into an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Population in France

It seems to me that France also has a noticeable jewish community from Maghreb.

I remember reading that after Algeria's independance a great part of Algerian jews choose France over Israel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.248.24.253 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That is right , Jews of Algeria became the largest jewish community in France..This is the reason why Sephardic Judaism is dominant in France , while before 1962 and 1945 (WW2's end) , it was mostly Ashkenazi.--Ekarfi13

Sephardim

Souldn't the article mention that Jews of Maghreb are classed as Sephardi Jews and are technically always described as such everywhere they go (France , Israel , Canada and so on) ? . They only are sometimes included in the "Mizrahi" category because of Maghreb is considered as part of the Arab world , otherwise , Maghreb Jews are closer to Iberian Jews ( and so Turkish Jews , Greek Jews and so on) than they are to proper "Mizrahi" groups such as Iraqi Jews/Iranian Jews.Ekarfi13 23:40 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Ekarfi13, you've inserted this source to support your claim that Jews of the Maghreb are typically seen as Sephardi, or you in your words, "Thus why many modernday Jews of the Maghreb are largely considered as Sephardic Jews". Where does the source say this? I can't see it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ekarf13, you've done it again. Can you please support your claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This source which I post just explains how there was an acculturation of the previous Jewish community by the Sephardi Jewish community who came between 1391 and 1492. Richard Ayoun is a perfect source since he's a specialist of that subject. Ekarfi13 10:45 (UTC)

Acculturation between 1391 and 1492 is not what the text claims. And don't restore unsourced claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable Maghrebi Jews

What about adding Richard Wolffe as a notable Maghrebi Jew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pross001 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Algeria section

@M.Bitton: I'm open for compromise, but I'd like to hear an explanation what part of the old paragraph that I removed is (for lack of a better word) salvageable:

“ In the 1930s and 1940s, nearly the entire continent of Africa was colonized. Algeria belonged to France; however, during World War II, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi forces took interest in the heavy Jewish presence in North Africa. The Algerian Jewish community was one of the most affected by Hitler's motives. ”

The first sentence is misleading, as it seems to imply Algeria came under French colonial rule in the 1930s, when in fact it was part of the French "mère patrie" since 1848. The second sentence is equally misleading, because Nazi Germany did not govern Algeria at any point, nor was Hitler particularly interested in North Africa (I'd like to see the WP:RS that claims otherwise). The third sentence is unnecessarily vague (affected how?) and void of content (what motives of Hitler's? Were Algerian Jews transported to Auschwitz like European Jews were?). --bender235 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're trying to portray the Algerian Jews as victims, when the real victims were the Muslims whose population was decimated over the course of 130 years of brutal colonization. If some Jews died in the violent place that was Algeria back then, they barely represent a drop in the ocean (mentioning the death of a singer is akin to scrapping the barrel). The fact that the majority of Algerian Jews chose the side of the colonizer is what matters here, and as a result, they left with the Pied-noirs. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody denies the atrocities suffered by the Algerian Muslim population under French rule, but after all this article about the Jewish population. I take it that you agree that the existing paragraph was misleading at best. The two paragraphs that I wrote as replacement actually address the issues you've raised: Algerian Jews "chose the side of the colonizer" because they've been given citizenship in 1870 (and again, in 1943) while their Muslim neighbors weren't. The notion that this led to growing antisemitism that culminated in the pogroms of the 1930s is taken almost verbatim from the source that was already in the article ([1]). That same source also specifically names the looting of the Algiers synagogue and the assassination of a popular singer as the triggering events for Jewish exodus. All I did was rephrasing and adding another academic source. So what specifically is your objection? Which part of the new paragraph is factually wrong, or what is missing? --bender235 (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't see much compromise coming from you. The antisemitic definition that you insist on adding is over simplistic (we can say that the Jews were Islamophobic) and the source in question (whose opinion/speculation about why they left you are reinstating) is a blog that contains factual errors (about the nationality). Tension in the middle of the war rose between everyone, including between Muslims, so again, I don't see why the Jews have to be portrayed as unique. As to why they left, that's easy: they chose a side like everyone else and left with it. If you're not happy with the way I left it, I'll revert to the stable version and we start all over again (seeking consensus for the change). M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Your WP:ADVOCACY and whataboutism seems to be motivated by something other than WP:5P. This article is hardly the place to renegotiate whether the targeted destruction of a synagogue deserves to be labelled "antisemitic violence". There is no point in seeking consensus with you alone, it seems. I hope WP:3O will help decide this disagreement. And just to address your last comment: just because there is all sorts of violence in a war doesn't mean specific acts during the war cannot also be "anti-semitic" (e.g., just because Operation Barbarossa was mainly anti-Bolshevik doesn't mean the simultaneously occurring Holocaust wasn't antisemitic). Also, I would like to have more details on what are the supposed "factual errors" in [2]. --bender235 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions makes you irrelevant. Consider yourself ignored (lucky in that respect as there is so much I can say about you). M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Much to "say about me"? Don't hold back. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I don't want to sink to your level. Anyway, you made yourself irrelevant (forever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 20 years now, but I don't recall ever crossing you in any way. Seriously, elaborate if you can why you would have an apparent personal issue with me. --bender235 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Suggest you both take this offline and hat the thread starting with WP:ADVOCACY as it's about personal contributors and not this article. Andre🚐 22:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC) You personalized the discussion, so it's for for you to answer that question (though I suggest you keep it to yourself as I have no interest in what you have to say). M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you both have a valid point. Antisemitism is a modern word - they didn't have a word for antisemitism in the early 1800s. But there was still anti-Jewish and antisemitic activity before there was a word for it. So we should be careful about attributing antisemitism to all pre-modern anti-Jewish activities. And I agree with bender235 that the Algerian synagogue destruction might be relevant, so it shouldn't be removed, but the NYT article is a WP:PRIMARY source so we should find a more reliable secondary source to support it. UNDUE, however, is not the right policy to cite here. Andre🚐 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I don't quite follow your logic about the word "antisemitic" being anachronistic for events in 1930 or 1960. Even if the word itself is of modern origin, it can be used in an encyclopedic context as part of the general description for historical events. Just for an analogy: the Battle of Cannae is described as an innovative use of the "double envelopment tactic" despite that being, of course, a word/concept unknown to both Romans and Carthaginians. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism (a new word that is stuck everywhere) had nothing to do with it. The Algerian Jews were first and foremost French who were caught in the crossfire. At some point, they made their bed by choosing the side of the oppressors and consequently, they left with them (despite everything the French had done to them). M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether we think today Algerian Jews made the right choice or deserve any sympathy; your statement is inappropriately personalizing the historical events. The question is if any reliable secondary sources described the events in 1930 or 1960 as antisemitic. If and only if the sources say that, we can also say that. Andre🚐 22:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I never said they made the wrong choice, but the fact that they chose the side of the oppressor is easily attributed to RS, there is nothing personal about that. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that oppressor, victim, sides, etc., need to be made very dry and boring. I feel an emotional content coming from you in statements like, portray the Algerian Jews as victims, when the real victims were the Muslims whose population was decimated over the course of 130 years of brutal colonization. If some Jews died in the violent place that was Algeria back then, they barely represent a drop in the ocean (mentioning the death of a singer is akin to scrapping the barrel). The fact that the majority of Algerian Jews chose the side of the colonizer is what matters here This article is "Maghrebi Jews." By its nature, the focus of this article will be on the Jewish people, including notable deaths of individuals. That isn't to minimize any plight of neighboring Muslims. Likely, both groups were victimized by the French colonizers, and it's not a contest. Andre🚐 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you say the same thing when talking about the holocaust? M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we really WP:GODWINing now? I would indeed say that if there was an article about the deaths of Romani Holocaust, that it would be inappropraite to say, "why are we talking about Romani deaths, that was a drop in the ocean, the real victims are Jews." Andre🚐 22:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Except that the Jews in this instance took the side of the oppressor, with some of them even joining the OAS. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And some Jews took the sides of the Nazis too. They are called kapos or self-hating Jews. But we don't paint an entire group with the brush of some of the members. We have to report and reflect on all of it, including some contradictions in terms that do exist in reality sometimes. Andre🚐 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Were those Jews a majority and did they leave leave with the Nazis? No, so no point in comparing apples to oranges. Also, I'm not talking about all of them, nor am I stating anything that isn't easily sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the book source just added by bender, Jews were split roughly between the Algerian nationalists and the OAS. This isn't my area of expertise, but that is what the book says [3] Andre🚐 22:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I did say that they were caught in the crossfire, didn't I? Some of them joined the OAS (despite the fact that its members hated everyone, Muslims, Jews, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, but if the reality is that half of Jews in Algeria were on the side of the OAS and half were on the side of the Algerian nationalists, that still, again, doesn't mean that there couldn't have been Jewish victims of anti-Jewish attacks from either the French colonists, or their Muslim neighbors. It's also possible that the relations changed and cooled or worsened over time and that antisemitism was less of an issue the further back you go in history, or that it's unclear, or depends on the geography. All of this belongs in the article and it's not UNDUE. Andre🚐 22:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

At that time, being neutral wasn't an option. People, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, had to choose a side and anyone who didn't ended up being a victim of one or the other. It's a complicated history that unfortunately is being presented in a simplistic manner. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism of this kind is far from WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter who had moral superiority in this conflict in retrospect. All this section is supposed to accomplish is to explain why there were 130,000 Algerian Jews in about 1950 but practically zero today. Not mentioning other atrocities from the Algerian War is not minimizing any of it, it's just keeping focus on what this article (or rather section) is about. --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

130,000 Jews were repatriated (meaning, they went home with the rest of the Pieds-Noirs). M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of them did leave for France, as the section explains (which, interestingly enough, was a sentence you wanted to see removed as "speculation"). Although "went home" would be the wrong choice of words, given the Algerian Jewish presence predated the French colonization; the majority was of 15th-century Iberian-Sephardic origin, if not older. France was neither their "home" nor destination of choice. --bender235 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have another definition for the word "repatriation" please present it. France was most definitely their destination of choice. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for any of them individually, but I would presume if given the choice they would have preferred to stay put in the country of their ancestors, Algeria. But that's neither here nor there. --bender235 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that they didn't open up a catalog and say, hmm, where shall I book cruise tickets. They went where they could. Andre🚐 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

They went with those they sided with (regardless of their ethnicity or religion) to the country that they fought for (that's a choice that they made). Some stayed (that's another choice that they could have made). M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Staying was clearly not an option for most. And in any case, if Algerian Jews "went home to France" as you insist, then I presume Vietnamese boat people went "home to the US" after the Fall of Saigon. --bender235 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Staying was an option (some did), but that's irrelevant since most have chosen the French side and with it the departure (like everyone else). I don't presume anything, they were repatriated, that's a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bender235: please don't remove sourced content without a valid reason. Contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary, the unique case of their repatriation is not discussed anywhere and is too important to be removed just because you don't agree with what it says. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, the "uniqueness" of Algerian Jews exodus is already described in the paragraph directly above your addition: "Algerian Jews are unique in that they are the only community of North African Jews that did not overwhelmingly emigrate to Israel during the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries; instead, the majority of Algerian Jews—being French citizens—chose France as their destination."

Further, the "even if they were psychologically uprooted, they 'returned' to France" is phrased with an unnecessary moral judgement and not supported by the source you provided. --bender235 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not mentioned. What is mentioned is the fact that they chose France, but their repatriation' is a different matter that is highlighted in RS as unique in the history of the Jewish migration. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

...which is what the paragraph above already said. So why do we need this redundancy? --bender235 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not: there is a massive difference between their choice of residence and the fact that they were repatriated (which is a unique case in the history of the Jewish migration). Also, the so-called "moral judgment" is supported by the cited source. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference in the way you phrased it vs. how the source describes it, and from your past argument I doubt this escaped you. --bender235 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please give the personal attacks a rest (you're not doing yourself a favour). How would you phrase it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your choice of words so far (enumerated by Andre above) leave little doubt that you're not interested in a NPOV.

As for my rephrasing: take what's already there, and add a sentence without duplicating. "Algerian Jews are unique in that they are the only community of North African Jews that did not overwhelmingly emigrate to Israel during the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries; instead, the majority of Algerian Jews chose France as their destination. While being psychologically uprooted from their Algerian homeland, they arrived in France as citizens rather than refugees." That should suffice. --bender235 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your persistent aspersions are getting tiresome.

There's a difference in the way you phrased it vs. how the source describes it I asked specifically "How would you phrase it?" (the sourced content) to see whether your comment has any merit. So far, you evaded the issue.

Also, why are you trying to remove the fact that they were repatriated? M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Repatriation, while legally correct, is the wrong term in this context. Unlike the pied-noirs, Algerian Jews did not originate from France. Referring to their expulsion as "repatriation" implies their being settler colonialist that were returning to their country of origin; obviously that was not the case. --bender235 (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Repatriation in this case is an important word as being repatriates gave them a certain status and privileges from the French government (that others didn't have).

I noticed that a) you also removed what I added yesterday under the pretence that it needs a better source, even though it's a scholarly source (no worries, I'll find another one) and b) you are yet to substantiate your gratuitous accusation of source misrepresentation (I will simply add it to the list of aspersions that you've been casting). M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I've stated my reasoning. Now I'm waiting for Andrevan or any other third person to weigh in on whether "repatriation" applies to group of people migrating to a country they never originated from, but rather received legal status (e.g., Vietnamese collaborators to US after Fall of Saigon). --bender235 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What is properly sourced is not a matter of editors' opinion. We're talking about a fact that is supported by multiple sources (the word "repatriated" is even applied to the Algerian Muslims, so I see no reason whatsoever why it should be removed). M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This might be a semantic argument. I assume bender235 you are taking repatriation to mean to be patriated again to one's original patriation. But it might just be used to mean, having a new patriation assigned, which does not actually need to be one that was previously assigned. I.e. "reassignment." If the sources use the word, we should use it too, so M.Bitton is certainly correct there. Andre🚐 20:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton's source uses the term repatriation in quotation marks, implying this wasn't a repatriation in the literal sense of the word. And yes, you understood my point correctly: "Jewish repatriation with the pied-noirs", as M.Bitton likes to phrase it, erroneously suggests that Algerian Jews only came with (and then left with) the French in the 19th/20th century. --bender235 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should probably use the quote marks too then, maybe with an explanatory aside. Andre🚐 20:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with adding the quotation marks. As for the explanatory note, there are sources that go into the details of what that meant. Incidentally, Katz's source uses the quotation marks even for the "repatriation" of the Pieds-Noirs (page 122). M.Bitton (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and Andrevan: can we add the fact that the post-independence Algerian nationality law excluded non-Muslims from obtaining Algerian citizenship, or is this again "portraying the Algerian Jews as victims" as M.Bitton wrote? --bender235 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bender235: apart from the fact that it's not true, what's that got to do with Algerian Jews? M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed: the very source that you used (Ethan Katz) says on page 212 that between late 1961 and late summer 1962 (that's before independence), 130,000 of Algeria's approximately 140,000 Jews left for France, while about 10,000 of them emigrated to Israel. M.Bitton (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What does a citizenship law that excludes non-Muslims have to do with a non-Muslim group? Hmm, don't know. By the way, the fact is a direct quote from the mentioned article, which includes not one but three WP:RS. From one of the sources (UNHCR, p. 56): "Algeria’s nationality code includes the common provision on the possession d’état de national algérien, if a person has always been treated as Algerian. In addition, it provides that nationality of origin can be claimed by showing evidence of two generations of ancestors born in the country (one parent and one of his or her parents)—but only if those ancestors were Muslim, introducing religious discrimination in an apparently procedural article." Please explain what they are missing and provide RS of your own. --bender235 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because I already provided what's needed to dismiss what is essentially irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can see the potential relevance, if there is another source that connects this to Jews in a more overt way, which there may be. It doesn't need to say that they intentionally excluded Jews (are there any Christians or pagans or Druze or traditional Berbers excluded by this?) Andre🚐 02:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because it makes no sense. We're talking about French people of different ethnic background that left by the summer of 1962 (see the quote about the Algerians Jews in the previous comment). The law in question was introduced in 1963. Do you see where the issue is? M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Laws don't come into existence over night, there's a weeks- if not months-long process of public debate that precedes it. But even at the time the law became effective there were still thousands of Algerian Jews residing in Algeria. --bender235 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is contradicted by the very source that you used (see previous comment). Also, your claim that anyone has been excluded from obtaining Algerian citizenship is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what WP:OR means. Anyways, please explain why UNHCR, p. 56 is "factually incorrect" and provide reliable sources for your claim. Interesting footnote, by the way, that you were behind this removal in August. ​ Pinging SusunW, the original contributor of said paragraph. --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's your irrelevant opinion. You are making the irrelevant claim, so it's your job to substantiate it (once done, we can dismiss it as irrelevant to the primary topic). What you find interesting is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a chance I am going to be involved in an editing dispute where the editors are not calmly discussing content. Please don't drag me into it. Whatever changes you all can agree on does not need my input. 18:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) SusunW (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

alright gents, let's tamp down the sniping a tad if we might? SusunW is right, this is getting a little heated, is it not? I've referred to UNHCR p. 56 which mentions that it's a bit religiously discriminatory but it doesn't specifically mention excluding Jews or that there were Jews remaining in Algeria, but is there a source for the latter that would lay a foundation to relevance here? And maybe we should all take the weekend to cool off on this. Andre🚐 19:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the source doesn't support their claim that some people have been excluded from obtaining Algerian citizenship. The part that they quoted specifically mentions the "nationality of origin" (which is another subject. The French who wanted the Algerian citizenship had to apply for it. Equally, the Algerians who wanted the French citizenship had to ask for it too). As to whether any of it applies to the Algerian Jews, I certainly don't see how given that all but a handful left long before then. The ones who stayed (As French) had to make a decision (like everyone else) on whether to become Algerian or stay French. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: it is indeed tiresome. This discussion is leading nowhere, given that M.Bitton dismisses any source out of hand and has yet to provide a single one confirming their own narrative (or at least a source contradicting the ones provided so far). I'm going to step aside, but I hope others will keep a watchful eye on it. --bender235 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that from the get-go, you had nothing but aspersions to offer, you should thank me for not answering in kind. Obviously, I don't need to prove a negative: the source that you provided doesn't support your baseless assertion (I did explain that, but unfortunately, it seems that your bad faith assumption is clouding your judgment). M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Everybody can read for themselves who started casting aspersions in literally the first reply to my opening post. Not to mention the ominous "there is so much I can say about you" a few replies later when in my 20 years on Wikipedia I don't recall our paths crossing even once. This whole thing is just bizarre. --bender235 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, they can read what I wrote about not wanting to sink to your level (after your repeated aspersions and assumption of bad faith, that actually never stopped). It's not just bizarre, it's pathetic. M.Bitton (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And @Bender235, thanks for that edit, which is constructive IMHO. I'm not saying you need to remove the primary source, but the interpretation should come from the WP:BESTSOURCES study. Ideally you can add both sources in a WP:REFBUNDLE cite. Andre🚐 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)