Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodes blood libel

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

[edit] Rhodes blood libel

This article is about a rather obscure event to which little research has been dedicated. As a result, the article relies largely on the reconstruction done by Jonathan Frankel in The Damascus Affair: "Ritual Murder," Politics, and the Jews in 1840 based on primary sources. It is a good article now, and it had a peer review most of the comments on which seems to have been implemented. I believe that the article meets all the featured article criteria and deserves a promotion. Beit Or 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The sourcing seems to be pretty thin, with almost all of the references coming from the Frankel book. semper fictilis 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As I explained above, this is a very obscure event. Frankel book is the only work where the course of events was reconstructed in detail. Even Angel devotes at most a couple of pages to this event, even though his book is specifically about the Jews of Rhodes. Beit Or 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first paragraph of body (heading "Jewish Community") is not sourced well enough. 1600 years of documents and measures surely deserve better documentation than a single reference to an encyclopedia article. The Roman document of c. 140 BCE (in 2nd Maccabees, if I recall correctly) should be cited independently, as should each measure in the paragraph. Ideally, the primary text should be cited together with whatever the standard bibliography is on that text. semper fictilis 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there anything that you dispute in this section? Theoretically, one can find more sources, but what's the point if the current one provides a reasonably good overview of the subject? The article is about the blood libel, not the history of Jews in Rhodes; this section is meant only as a brief introduction. Beit Or 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "A reasonably good overview" is not the standard for a featured article. Since you ask about specific objections, the reference in 2nd Maccabees that news of the Roman treaty with the Jews was sent to Rhodes is not good evidence of a Jewish community there already in the mid-second century BC, though I'm sure you'll be able to find oodles of bibliography that suggests it. If you're interested in improving the referencing there are number of ways to do it: references to blood libel elsewhere (e.g., in England in the next paragraph) can presumably refer to more specialist bibliography, as can (I assume) growing Christian influence in the Ottoman court, which provides part of the background. Presumably there are works about Rhodes generally in the 19th century, and about the Jews under the Ottomans. One way or the other, without better bibliography the article falls short of featured status, in my view. semper fictilis 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well done article on a fairly obscure topic; good work in getting even these many sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• support per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It looks very good, but I would really like to see a bit more variety in the sources before I support. I acknowledge that the subject is obscure, but even obscure subjects will have more than one work written about them. —Cuiviénen 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is a really well-written article. I have fixed a few really minor errors. This isn't an article that is likely to spawn any controversy IMHO, so unless you can point to any specific assertions you'd like to see backed up by more than one source, I'd say make this an FA. The only issue that could be a problem is the lack of an image that could be used on the main page. Are there any images in those books that depict any of the arrested Jews or a scene from the blockade of the Jewish quarter or even from one of the trials or hearings? Their copyright would certainly be expired.--Carabinieri 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How about the drawing of a Jewish prisoner on pg. 410 in Frankel's book? I would add it myself, but the book is only a limited preview at google books, so it can't be downloaded, but since you probably own or have access to the book itself, that will be easier for you anyway. Could you add that image? It is public domain and could therefore be used for the main page since it was published in 1840 or 1841.--Carabinieri 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is a prisoner from the Damascus affair. Beit Or 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops... Sorry.--Carabinieri 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and I second Jayjg's comment. Arrow740 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. An interesting read. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Yet another encyclopedia-quality article from Beit Or.Proabivouac 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is when I love Wikipedia. Very detailed stuff on an interesting, small subject. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting, informative and well written. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.