Talk:Arab Jews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Removal of infobox and other unconstructive edits
To editor Free1Soul: Please restore the infobox, in-line 'citation needed' tags and dead link tags that you removed in (these edits). You provided no reason for removing the infobox, a critical and well-sourced component of the article. Your reasons for removing the dead link tagging are also unclear (note for instance the clearly dead Voice of America source that you removed the dead link tag from). You also provided no explanation for removing several 'citation needed' tags in instances where no further citation has been provided. You should also not unilaterally remove disputed neutrality tags from articles when the neutrality is so clearly the source of dispute, and where the only changes made since the application of the tag are your own nonconsensual edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The infobox did not use reliable sources, and only addressed a small minority of Jews from Arab countries - the small minority, less than 0.1%, still living in Arab countries after the pogroms and expulsions - most now live in Israel, France, the US, and other countries who offered refuge from antisemitism. The infobox was inappropriate - this is a term most Mizrahi Jews find deeply offensive and object to - adding population figures in an infobox is the same as adding such an infobox to Nigger. I provided citations to the citation needed tags. Your addition of dead link tags was disruptive - most of the refs you tagged were journal and book sources, like Historicizing the Concept of Arab Jews in the Maghrib in The Jewish Quarterly Review which had no url and needs no url. The vast majority of your dead link tags were disruptive, and not on actually dead links. Free1Soul (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)sock- Journal and book sources should of course, wherever possible, have links, e.g.: to Google books. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your analogy is meanwhile terrible. For one, the point of this article is not to define what Arab Jews means from the perspective of one group, but what it has meant as a term over in entire history of use. It is also hard to see how this phrase can possibly be as offensive as you say, as it is in effect, a simple contraction of the term 'Arabised Jews', just as the term 'Arab' is essentially a contraction of the term 'Arabised peoples'. If there is any perceived offense in that, I assume you mean the term 'Arab' is viewed as offensive, which would seem to point more to the troubled mindset of those that take offense than any demonstrable inappropriateness in the basic terminology. Is 'Arabised' controversial as well? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Finally, if it was only the vast majority of my dead link tags that you viewed as disruptive, why did you remove them all, and not simply remove 'the vast majority'? Likewise, why did you remove all of the 'citation needed' tags indiscriminately? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Rewrite and clean-up
Hi all, I have performed a massive rewrite of this piece to re-orient this page back towards its purpose as a page about "a term", the origins of the term, its recent political usage and the key criticisms against it, and away from being an article about Jewish community demographics, Mizrahi Jews or post-Zionism, none of which it should be about, and all of which have their own pages. As the section on origins and journal references hopefully make clear, the term 'Arab Jews' has been used as a term in academic literature long before the emergence of any post-Zionist critique or any other intellectual trends. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The section on "Arab-Jewish diaspora" is possibly also inappropriate and would be good to discuss. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Reverted. The change downplayed just how contested this is. You changed this to a "term", not "contested political term", something other editors already objected to. You changed from "the vast majority of Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not identify as Arabs, and most Jews who lived amongst Arabs did not call themselves "Arab Jews" or view themselves as such" to "do not often self-identify ", which other editors already objected to. Free1Soul (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)sock- As my rewrite made clear, it is a term with an academic usage that predates its recent politicization, hence the phrase 'political term' is inappropriate. There was no supporting source for the 'vast majority' statement. 'Majority' was not a word from the source. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, my mistake on the word 'majority', which is mentioned by David Tal (2017), though I would note that the appropriate quotation from Tal uses the phraseology
"reject the Arab Jew definer as representing their own identity"
, while Yehouda and Hannan note"very few Jews of Arab descent, in Israel, would label themselves Arab Jews"
so based on the sources available, the use of the phrase 'self-identify' is clearly an entirely representative phrasing that is completely consistent with the sources. What is the difference between call oneself and self-identify? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, my mistake on the word 'majority', which is mentioned by David Tal (2017), though I would note that the appropriate quotation from Tal uses the phraseology
- As my rewrite made clear, it is a term with an academic usage that predates its recent politicization, hence the phrase 'political term' is inappropriate. There was no supporting source for the 'vast majority' statement. 'Majority' was not a word from the source. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- More like radically re-written the article to push an overtly racist agenda. Disappointing, but not surprising. The article has been massively damaged by these pernicious edits. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- To editor Bohemian Baltimore: Which edits are you talking about? Everything I have done has been reverted. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- To editor Bohemian Baltimore: Irony upon irony, you have inserted the hopelessly POV term 'gentile'. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- To editor Bohemian Baltimore: Which edits are you talking about? Everything I have done has been reverted. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)