Implicit POV[edit]

Per the ongoing discussion at the main article, we need to ensure that WP:BALASPS is followed at this template. This template suggests that the first main article regarding the exodus is the 1948 war, which appears to be a clear attempt at "linkage". Including UNGA 194 raises the same POV concern. It doesn't mention anywhere the colonisation and decolonisation of the Maghreb, which was a very significant factor according to all accounts. It does mention Nazis and the Arab world, which is obvious POV - particularly given that topic's limited direct relevance to the exodus. And under key events it gives too much weighting to persecution, and not enough weighting to all the other relevant push and pull factors in each country (see broader discussion at the main article talk page).

Does anyone have any suggestions re how to fix this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have suggestions?GreyShark (dibra) 16:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either we create articles on the exodus in every country (a joint project for the future?), or we create articles on all the push and pull factors, or in the absence of currently being able to bring such balance, we remove the persecution-related articles temporarily. I have implemented the latter for now. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to deal with the "articles on the exodus in every country", I have now Anchor-linked to each of the most relevant "History of the Jews in #" articles. I hope you find this a good solution, and look forward to working with you on these when you are back. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've re added suspiciously removed articles detailing the antisemitic sentiment towards Jews that resulted in this exodus. Drsmoo (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot of WP:RS on this subject, and none state that antisemitism was a primary factor in the exodus. If you have WP:RS showing otherwise, please bring them here. The onus is on you to justify inclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expelling Jews en-masse is by definition antisemitic. It also does not need to be a "primary" (in your words) factor to be included, if it were a secondary or tertiary reason that would also justify the tag (though it wasn't). As it stands, an expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews is antisemitic in and of itself. However, simply for the sake of historical accuracy, here are several sources pointing out the obvious antisemitism:
  1. "The Arab states' policy toward the Jews was influenced by two factors: anti-Semitism and pragmatism." [1]
  2. "Seven years later, upon Israel’s establishment, Iraq declared martial law and launched a wave of anti-Jewish persecutions. Many Jews were arrested, tried and convicted, some were sentenced to death, others were given jail terms or slapped with large fines. At this stage, the Jews were forbidden to leave the country, but in March 1950 Iraq allowed the Jews to emigrate, provided they gave up their citizenship and their property. The ongoing deterioration in the Jews’ situation and the atmosphere of hate surrounding them led to a mass flight from the country,” Weinstock writes. The majority of the Jewish population (90 percent of the community of 150,000) left that year, amid a massive plundering of their property by the authorities. In Egypt, anti-Jewish disturbances broke out in November 1945, on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, but the declaration of the State of Israel three years later triggered serious persecution. Hundreds of Jews were arrested, accused of involvement in Zionist or communist plots and had their property confiscated. Continuous attacks on Jews began that June. Bombs were planted in the Jewish quarter of Cairo, and it and the Jewish section of Alexandria were set ablaze. Half the country’s Jewish community left at that time, with the remainder being expelled during the Sinai War of 1956. The Jews who were driven out were not allowed to take with or sell their property." [2]
  3. "By "the masses in the Arab world," Jamali in fact meant his own government, which soon took a series of steps, including anti-Semitic legislation, against its Jewish population. This began with a 1948 amendment to the Penal Code of Baghdad, adding Zionism to other ideologies and behavior (communism, anarchism, and immorality) whose propagation constituted a punishable offense. Laws in 1950 and 1951 the deprived Jews of their Iraqi nationality and their property in Iraq, respectively....Yemen. Yemeni persecution of Jews prompted a trickle of Jewish emigration to Palestine from the third quarter of the nineteenth century on. Heykal Pasha's speech merely added momentum to the longstanding Yemeni policy of discrimination against and degradation of Jews, based on a particularly pedantic interpretation of the Islamic law....Attacks on Jewish quarters in Tripoli and other cities occurred in 1945, leading to a death toll the British put at 130 Jews.24 In other words, Jews began leaving Libya three years before the establishment of Israel and seven years before Libya gained independence. Their departure turned into a mass exodus as soon as Israel gained independence and the gates opened to Libyan Jewry.... As in Yemen and Libya, crude pressure on the Jews of Syria-such as the 1947 pogrom in Aleppo and the rape and murder of four Jewish girls who allegedly tried to smuggle themselves out of Syria-caused a substantial emigration."[3]
  4. "During the Sinai campaign of 1956 (a four-month war against British, French and Israeli forces over the control of the Sinai peninsula and adjoining waterways), the Egyptian Ministry of Religion issued a decree declaring “All Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state.” Thousands were expelled." [4]
  5. "On 22 November 1956 a new Egyptian Nationality Code barred all so-called 'Zionists' from Egyptian nationality. On the following day an inflammatory proclamation was read out in all mosques declaring: ' All Jews are Zionists and enemies of the State.' Four days later, on November 27, the Jerusalem Post reported that Jews arriving by plane in Paris 'confirmed that expulsion orders were being issued to Jews in Egypt by the thousands.'" [5]
Sugarcoating antisemitism is offensive, it took only a few minutes to find these reliable sources. Suffice to say, the categories are being restored. Drsmoo (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo, you have illustrated the issues here perfectly, thank you. These have all been discussed at the main article talk page. I suggest you read that in detail first. But to summarise briefly:
0) You state "expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews is antisemitic". Sorry but you are mistaken. There were no expulsions of hundreds of thousands. Across the entire region and many decades there was only one expulsion, that is the 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt, and that was not focused on Jews but on "foreigners".
1) Levin is talking about property policy not exodus policy. And then he refers to Lewis who says the opposite.
2) This says nothing about anti-semitism. You are interpreting it yourself.
3) Meron is not WP:RS. See for example Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries/Archive_4#Iraq:_Nuri_and_Kirkbride.2C_and_Ya.27akov_Meron
4+5) See Talk:1956–57_exodus_and_expulsions_from_Egypt#Proclamation_re_Jews_and_Zionists
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not ever "format" my edits. As I said earlier, sugarcoating antisemitism is offensive. The idea that "anti-Jewish" and "anti-semitic" are somehow different is ridiculous and doesn't pass the smell test. Levin describes the Arab States' attitude toward Jews as anti-semitic. Reliable sources are out of the way and the inclusion is justified, but now we are talking about something else. (And yes "property policy" and "exodus policy" are the same thing in this context.) It would be great to hear a case for how "anti-Jewish" is different from "anti-semitic." Anti-Jewish and anti-semitic are synonymous, and multiple reliable sources have been provided using both terms. While I am interested in dialog and productive discussion, this is clear cut, along with reliable sources and the backing of other editors. I would also recommend reading the actual article, which not only includes Anti Semitism in its side bar, it also mentions antisemitism consistently. There are fewer editors working on Template pages, but here there is a consensus as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So which source(s) are you standing by here? It can't be Levin, as he does not make that statement as being relevant to the exodus. And as I said, he states that Lewis took the opposite view. The only other possible article is the Forward piece, which is contradictory to much better sources like Moshe Gat (Iraq) and Joel Beinin (Egypt).
There really are no WP:RS which make the direct connect between the exodus and antisemitism that you are trying to make. By putting it in the "background" here, you are implying that a history of Arab antisemitism is a relevant part of the backstory. But the scholars say the opposite, that such feelings were not held in a material way prior to 1948, and then it was Anti-Zionism at the forefront.
Please stop trying to skew history. There is a reason you can't find a source to adequately support your preconceptions.... Oncenawhile (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS - what are you talking about re sugarcoating? Anti-Semitism is abhorrent, and like all forms of racism, cannot be sugarcoated. It also needs to be handled very carefully, and aspersions of anti-semitism should not be thrown around the historical record without due care. In this case, such behaviour is bordering on the Islamophobic. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The antisemitic nature of the exodus of Jews from Arab countries is already well established and cited in the main article. I provided additional reliable sources here in the name of collaborative editing. Your ridiculous accusation and personal attack does not warrant a response. Drsmoo (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo, despite repeated asking, you have yet to provide a single WP:RS source which states a clear and direct link between a background of historical antisemitism and the exodus. The onus is on you to bring such sources if you want to keep the antisemitism link in the background section to this template. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted multiple reliable sources along with those used in the main article and the category will remain. Drsmoo (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo, nothing you have shown provides support for your addition. I can post irrelevant WP:RS quotes all day long, but if they ultimately rely on SYNTH to make my point, they are worthless. Unless you can actually support your addition, it will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove it, I'll restore it and report you for edit warring and ignoring reliable sources and consensus both here and on the article page. Drsmoo (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are plentiful sources, including those provided by Drsmoo above, showing that antisemitism was an important factor in the exodus. Inclusion in the template does not imply that it was the main factor, even though it can probably be supported too. “WarKosign” 21:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not one WP:RS has been provided to show it was "an important factor in the exodus". Not one. Sure there were antisemites in these countries at the time of the exodus. Unfortunately there have been antisemites in most countries of the world. Fortunately, most of the time this doesn't cause an exodus of Jews. To justify inclusion, you have to prove it was an important factor, not just that the two were contemporaneous. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source says "... debate out why the jews left the arab world en masse has revolved around arab anti-semitism as the main causal factor". It shows that some scholars consider antisemitism not only to be an important factor but the main reason for the exodus. “WarKosign” 11:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent source. Fischbach is well balanced in his analysis, and Chapter 1 of his book is a very good summary of the background. I suspect that putting this source out there is going to allow us to reach agreement here, so thank you WarKosign.
Having said which, you have been a little bit naughty with your quote. You cut out the beginning of the sentence, which says that that debate is political, and "not always academic", and then the last sentence of the paragraph: "We must take note of the extremely political context and agendas that have motivated this debate". That last sentence summarizes perfectly why I feel so strongly about this, and why I am holding out against Drsmoo's protestations. I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously. But we cannot allow wikipedia to look like a political advocacy website - in these areas of extreme politicization, we must hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove your personal attack. There is a consensus on this page and the template, along with reliable sources, those are the reasons your edits have been continuously reverted by multiple editors Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended as an attack. What I was trying to say was that I trust your underlying intentions to be good - i.e. that, in the words of the great Spandau Ballet, you "want the truth to be said". So can we focus on Fischbach and try to agree what we really think the truth here is? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to be naughty, I would've omitted the word "debate" and wouldn't put ellipsis that indicates there is some content before the quote that I intentionally omitted. The source does not say that antisemitism was definitely the main reason for the exodus, only that this opinion is held by some scholars (and yes, politicians too). There was recently a discussion (mirrored right under this one) whether One Million Plan was relevant enough to the exodus to warrant its inclusion. Is there any doubts that antisemitism was far more relevant ? “WarKosign” 13:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fischbach states that even within academia, such arguments are "polemical".
As to relative relevance vs. the One Million Plan, I suggest we don't get in to that debate as it is wholly subjective and it will not help us conclude here.
In order to progress, would you mind, as a sign of good faith, reading all of Fischbach's Chapter 1 and letting me know if you think at least there is something reasonable that we can agree on here?
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it. There is a lot of material not related to this discussion, but on relevant subject this is a good quote: "there is no doubt that Arab hostility toward Jews in the Middle East and North Africa left them feeling increasingly uneasy about their futures by the 1930s and 1940s. This uneasiness certainly affected their decisions on whether or not to emigrate. But the very political post-1948 debate over the origins and nature of Arab anti-Semitism, and the degree to which it alone was responsible for the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, can potentially obfuscate more than enlighten." You asked for a reliable source supporting a "clear and direct link between a background of historical antisemitism and the exodus". You consider Fischbach a reliable source and there are several quotes in the first chapter that support the link. “WarKosign” 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is a good quote from a good source, so I am satisfied. This point aside, re-reading the chapter has made clear that the current sidebar template gives a very different overall impression of the background than the "nuanced" version of the background that Fischbach describes. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One million plan[edit]

I've removed the One Million Plan per this discussion, which also links to a previous one, where all but one editor thinks the One Million Plan is significant. Please do not restore unless a new consensus is reached there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - a clear synthesis case, trying to "create a conspiracy" from two unrelated topics.GreyShark (dibra) 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So you both don't think the One Million Plan is significant to the topic. That will then be the question in the RFC. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not significant enough to be in the sidebar, but probably significant enough to have a short paragraph in the background section of the main article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it's less significant that The David Project? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The David Project is halfway down the template in a section titled "Advocacy". The OMP was at the top of the "Main articles" section. It is not necessary or helpful to compare the two directly, since they are not placed on the same level of significance within the template. If you'd like to start a "plans that were not implemented" section and put the OMP there, we can discuss that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond synthesis, Once is trying to create an alternative history. LOL.GreyShark (dibra) 17:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you just don't like it being at the top? You should have said so.
It was there as it is in chronological order. If you want to deemphasise, perhaps move the country links up to the top.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just said your comparison was silly. I don't think it's significant enough to be in the sidebar at all. I've said that 3 times now. Do not take my future silence as agreement to your proposed changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable thing relevant to the background of the Jewish exodus is the Aliyah Bet article, to which One Million Plan is somehow integrative. The plan itself is not notable because it was shelved and most notably there is no clear source connecting it to the Jewish exodus from Arab countries, which took place many years later.GreyShark (dibra) 07:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=pxgonnuybEgC&lpg=PR14
  2. ^ http://forward.com/culture/199257/the-inconvenient-truth-about-jews-from-arab-lands/
  3. ^ http://www.meforum.org/263/why-jews-fled-the-arab-countries
  4. ^ https://www.guernicamag.com/features/the_last_jews_of_cairo/
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=4Kis0gWNQ5QC&lpg=PA257
Categories