Talk:Rhodes blood libel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Rhodes blood libel is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2007, and in the Did you know? column on October 31, 2006.

Contents

[edit] GA Review

This article is on a 7 day hold. This means that it is close to achieving GA status, but has problems which mean it cannot achive it just yet. Those problems should be rectifiable given 7 days. The main problem is referencing. To see the criteria for a good article, click here.

Well written: Pass. Reads well and is encyclopedic. Has a logical and hierarchical structure. Some capitalisation issues though, 'Jews' occassionally written 'jews' etc. These do need to be sorted.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. Unreferenced assertions appear throughout. Phrases like "documents refer to" make me suspect that there is original research (OR) in this article, which is of course banned from Wikipedia. A good example of a lack of referencing and suspected OR is in the first paragraph of the "Jewish Community of Rhodes" section. "An eyewitness reported: 'It was firmly believed that the child in question was doomed to be sacrificed by the Jews. The whole island was agitated from one end to the other.'" Did they? Which secondary or tertiary source did you take that from? "The first appearance of the blood libel under the Ottoman rule took place in the reign of Mehmet II". Says who? These kind of things must be rectified for GA to be awarded here, but it is doable in the 7 day hold period.

Broad in scope: Pass. Gives origins of the crisis in history, details of the crisis itself and how it ended.

NPOV: Pass. I detected no POV in the article.

Stable: Pass. The article does not change hugely from day to day.

Pictures: N/A. Pictures are not necessary for a GA, and this article can happily stand alone without any.

So, sort out those referencing issues, and in 7 days the article will be reassessed. Hopefully, it will then pass. Thanks for all your work so far. Chrisfow 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the referencing issues raised above:
  • "An eyewitness reported: 'It was firmly believed that the child in question was doomed to be sacrificed by the Jews. The whole island was agitated from one end to the other.'" The entire paragraph is referenced to Frankel, Jonathan (1997). The Damascus Affair: "Ritual Murder," Politics, and the Jews in 1840, p. 69 (the reference is at the end of the paragraph). More specifically, the footnote on the same page says that this eyewitness account was published in an article "Administration of Justice towards the Jews in the East' in the issue of The Times of 18 April 1840.
  • "The first appearance of the blood libel under the Ottoman rule took place in the reign of Mehmet II". This is from Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam, p. 158 (the reference is at the end of the next sentence) It is only because of formatting issue that the paragraph appears to break after this sentence (actually, it doesn't, as one can see from the code).
If there are any more places that do not seem to be referenced, I'll be happy to provide further explanations. Beit Or 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A general note: there are several instances in this article where there is just one reference at the end of the paragraph. In all these case, the reference applies to the whole paragraph. Beit Or 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Beit Or. I thought that this was perhaps the case. It is standard for claims to be referenced immediately after the sentence that the reference relates to, rather than one reference for the whole paragraph. However, this is standard in Britain, and I do not know the conventions in other English speaking countries. Also, the Wiki guideline on referencing does not touch on the subject of where to reference. I think it is clear here what your sources are if anyone wishes to question your assertions.
So...
Chrisfow 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA Review

Having passed the above criteria, I am happy to award this article with GA status. Well done to all involved! Chrisfow 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Where it says "In addition, the governor of Rhodes ... turned for instructions to the central government, which initiated a formal inquiry into the affair. In July 1840, a governmental investigation established the innocence of the Jews." The second sentence presumably refers to the formal inquiry started by the central government, but it's not clear from the way it's written. Also, it might be helpful to say what their actual conclusion was, rather than "established the innocence of ..." Just a suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, the sentence has been clarified (hopefully). The only result of the investigation was the declaration of the innocence of the Jews. It was never established why the child had disappeared. Beit Or 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources, people!

It seems you've overlooked the major one, the Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore. You can look at it on the Google Books PDF. So far, I've wikified Chapter 32 at s:Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, which discusses the whole episode of his meeting the Pasha and the Sultan in Constantinople. Stuff I haven't gotten to: Chapter 34 includes the text of the firman, and Chapter 25 includes the whole text of the letter from Constantinople to London, including cc of the letters sent to Constantinople from Damascus and Rhodes. Hopefully, someone can collaborate with me on some of these last-minute improvements, and incorporate the information from the primary sources into the article. Thanks.--Pharos 18:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the links! I'm afraid I cannot help with incorporating these materials into the article since I am traveling and editing from my PDA. Beit Or 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European diplomatic viewpoint

Very interesting and well done article, but I was somewhat confused by the conflicting attitudes of the European diplomatic corps, especially the English. How did it come about that the policy of the consuls at Rhodes and the diplomatic corps in their home countries toward the Jews and the blood libel were so different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piratedan (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

That's indeed an intriguing issue. My own explanation is that those days consuls were very independent (and powerful) and did not feel the need to ask for instructions every time. Beit Or 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

Vandals edited page i reverted to a previous version. Page should be considered semilocked due to anti-semitists vandalising the page. 99.245.230.98 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As with all other TFA's, the page should not be semi-protected except move protection. ShadowHalo 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British consul J. G. Wilkinson

John Gardner Wilkinson -- are they one and the same? If so a wikilink should be added. Kablammo 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (As I should have mentioned before: This is a very interesting and worthy article. Kablammo 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the link! I also think that's him. Beit Or 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William of Norwich

There is a scholarly article of 2005 (i.e. later than Poliakov's book) which throws doubt on whether the above case was actually an incidence of blood libel. I added the reference to Timeline of antisemitism. Would the easiest solution in this case be to take out the reference to William of Norwich and instead to explain the usual character of medieval blood libel accusations? Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Much more is required than just one article (which I didn't check yet) to cast doubt on what is generally considered the first case of blood libel against the Jews. Beit Or 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree at all. The article is based on a thorough understanding of the British context, while the previous scholarship tends to take the German blood libels of the early modern period as typical and projects it back into the English middle ages. The article does not at all aim to deny the antisemitic nature of the accusations, but it does show that the ideological framework was different. Has anyone had a chance to read it yet? Itsmejudith 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing boy

Another improvement that could be made to the article would be to mention whether it was ever proven what happened to the missing boy. Was it ever determined whether the dead body that the anti-Semites tried to plant in the Jewish quarter was the boy's, or someone else's? Did the boy turn up alive at some later time? If none of this is known, at least his name would be useful. Pirate Dan 15:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing more is known about the boy. Beit Or 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantinople vs Istanbul

Since this particular Blood Libel occurred in the 1800's the should not the article be changed to say Istanbul not Constantinople since its changed in the 1400's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.58.14.80 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Map

The map Image:Ottoman Jewish.png shows Kars on the Russian side of the border (with a date of 1878). If the border is meant to be that of 1840, Kars should be on the Ottoman side. jnestorius(talk) 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damascus Affair

Would anyone who has been involved in this page be able to add some detail, particularly from the Frankel book, to the Damascus Affair page. At the moment there is a lot of difference of emphasis between the short account of the Damascus Affair here and the longer account in that article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 16:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)