Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world/Archive 2

Settle the emigration:exodus issue once and for all.
It seems the antisemite brigade has mobbed up this article, just because some minor difference or definition it can't be made into "emigration" bring up all the sources that say otherwise and are reasonable and sum the policies that caused the effect.

for what I am concerned this is a similar phenomena to what happened earlier in poland on steroids, motivated by the same means the americans were in WWII when they put restrictions on the japanese and blended with traditional antisemitism you can read authentic examples of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * as per your "anti-semitic" name calling WP:NPA122.167.178.244 (talk)

Jewish Populations of non-Arab Muslim Countries: 1948 and 2001
What does the "Jewish Populations of non-Arab Muslim Countries" have to do with the article "Jewish exodus from Arab lands"? a jewish diaspora article or something of that sort will be more appropriate but it is completely irrelevant to this article. unless of course you want to add "Jewish Populations of non-Arab Christian Countries" too. 122.167.178.244 (talk)
 * Perhaps then the article should be renamed Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands, or something along those lines. Regardless, it makes little sense to remove relevant sourced content because it doesn't jive 100% with the article name.I'll presently reinsert the content, pending further discussion.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "Jewish exodus from Arab-Muslim lands." Thus it includes all the Arab states as well as Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Iran's Jewish population has shrunk by 2/3 since the revolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the conflation with Arab=Muslim? It doesn't. You'll find George Habash and Michel Aoun as arabs too. It doesnt jive at all with this article because it comes of Islamophobic. Likewise if this conflation were endure then firstly Lebanon would not fit b/c in 1948 its demograhpics were different and a list for christian countried should certainly be included. What are the jewish populations of spain, france, germany, russia, holland, etc, etc now as opposed 1948. (also exodus doesnt by definition mean 1948. talk of a jewish exodus "from arab lands" can go further back into history too. Im not advocating merging the 2, however its certainly some food for thought.) (Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The population of these countries would go to their respective articles, as it is unrelated to this one. Also, Wikipedia talk page is not the place to shout around, there are plenty of political forums on the internet for just that. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, whose shouting around politically. Fair enough though, if they should go to their respective countried when why is Muslim-Arab conflated? the political aspect is the conflation of the two on a page that clearly doesnt preclude it. How can you say i was being political when the article itself clearly takes political sides to lump 'em all together? There's nothign scientific/encylclopaedic/anthropoligic(??) about this as it stand now.(Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states facts. If there are any facts in the article that you disagree with, bring them forward. TFighterPilot (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would put the two together? Because they're all part of the same phenomenon. The exodus of Jews from Arab-Muslim lands in the Middle East region in the span of a few decades. And Arab nationalism is essentially indivisible from Islam -- there are a scant number of Christians involved in the movement but overall they have been marginalized and increasingly oppressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * as the post above suggests keep politics out of it. this is not a web log to show opinion. whether x or y is repressed is not the question, you are free to start an article about christian oppression in the arab lands if you so please.
 * if you feel they are related then add a "see also" link (which is the point of having a see also link). furthermore you will find the jewish population of Lebanon actually grew in the immediate aftermath of 1948. where are the parallels then? the exodus you talk about as a consequence of 1948 also has parallels with the jews leaving russia, moldova, ethiopia, etc, etc. and "essentially indivisible" doesnt constitute cited authority and fact, it constitutes the opinion of wikipedia editors.
 * as to tightpilot ascertation that this constitutes facts, no one is arguing with the facts. the debate is the relevance to this article, and your arguement is completely off base.
 * More importantly, if there are WP:RS calling this an exodus it is not up to wikipedia to create news and label it an exodus (especially in the light of this being a loaded world with biblical connotations on the Exodus.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * its been almost 10 days since the topic was replied to. is there no one that has objections to it? Consensus can't wait forever.Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to change it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to come to agreement, theres the suggestion to move the title page then (by 2) so the above mentioned Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands is more appropiate.Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense
This article is full of wrong information. For example, the Arabs Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, cannot be Anti Semitic, since they are Semitic people. Exodus? What Exodus! They left by their own will for the most part. This article is really bad for the credibility of Wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.159.210 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right and wrong is a subjective definition, and denies the basic pillars of wikipedia. All relevant views (credible ones) must be brought, and the reader should decide himself what is right and what is not. By denying some information and overwriting another wikipedia loses all credibility, completely in opposite to your claim.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"anti-zionist" writers
Is Uri Avnery an "anti-Zionist"? Is Wilbur Crane Eveland? Unless a reliable source is provided for each of the people this article labels as "anti-Zionist" that term must be removed per WP:BLP. Additionally, why is it that users who routinely remove the label "pro-Israel" from organizations such as AIPAC as "well-poisoning" add this label here? Is it not "well-poisoning" here?  nableezy  - 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that calling someone an "anti-Zionist" is a BLP violation, but since most of those names didn't have sources supporting them, I removed them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed a name for which there is a source, namely Eveland. Also, the other names are backed by Moshe Gat in The Jewish exodus from Iraq (page 178, footnote 64).  nableezy  - 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not remove Eveland, he was in the next sentence. Not sure why we need him twice. There are some other problems with this list:
 * Who's Marion Wolfsohn and why is their opinion notable?
 * Since Hirsh is sourced to Gat, shouldn't we note that?
 * Gat is critical of Avneri et al, since we're using him as a source, again, shouldn't his opinion be noted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not notice that Eveland was in the next sentence. You are right, he isnt needed twice, ill clean that up. How would you like to note that Avnery and Hirst are sourced to Gat besides the reference saying it sourced to Gat? Is Gat's work not already included in that section, or do you just want to include the specific criticism by Gat of the others? I dont know who Wolfson is, but Gat apparently does and saw that view as being worthy of inclusion in that book. Notability does not determine content, WP:N applies to whether or not articles should exist, not what goes in them. That said, I dont particularly care if Wolfsohn is removed.  nableezy  - 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note of the fact notability does not determine content. This issue comes up a lot. Anyway, the wording of this whole paragraph is problematic. Who says these people share Giladi's position? That's OR. It's particularly strange since his writing is from a later date. Giladi himself is not an expert on these matters and it seems his opinions were self-pusblished. The whole paragraph needs work, it looks like it was lifted verbatim from the Naeim Giladi article.
 * I suggest something along the lines of Avneri and Hirst say it's Israel who done it, while Gat says the evidence doesn't support that claim and that and Avneri doesn't know what he's talking about. CIA officer Eveland also thinks it's Israel.
 * Could use some refining. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked closely into the details of this dispute, but just a few notes on policy.
 * 1. Calling someone an anti-Zionist without a source that calls them an anti-Zionist is clearly a BLP violation. Such statements must be removed until a source is found that supports them.
 * 2. Similarly it is clearly against policy to say that two or more writers agree with each other unless a source says that they agree. It is not acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to look at the writing of two or more writers, conclude that they agree, and put that conclusion in a Wikipedia article. This is a clear violation of WP:OR. If the writers are still living, it also may violate WP:BLP.
 * 3. Although nableezy is correct that WP:N applies only to the existence of articles, not their content, Wikipedia has another policy on undue weight, part of our neutral point of view policy, that does apply to content. It says, among other things, that some sources are so minor that they do not merit being mentioned at all. Since Marion Wolfsohn seems not to be notable enough to have an article of his own, it's quite possible that a successful argument could be made that mentioning his views could violate that policy (but I haven't looked into it closely enough to form an opinion of my own on the question).
 * I hope this clarifies the relevant policies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a source, Philip Mendes of Latrobe University, who mentions all of the anti-Zionist sources, so labels them, and says that they share the same opinion on the Baghdad bombings. I don't consider this the last word on the matter, but it's a beginning. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no definition of "anti-Zionist" that would allow Uri Avnery to be called an anti-Zionist. I dont feel this mention of a "number of anti-Zionist authors" and the grouping of Avnery and Eveland and the others can be used to call these living people "anti-Zionist". I also fail to see why these people should be labeled at all. We dont preface any mention of a Zionist author with the word "Zionist".  nableezy  - 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uri Avnery calls himself "post-Zionist", and not "anti-Zionist". It may be libelous to directly state that as a fact and it should be avoided per BLP. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources - Morris about a committee that checked the allegations and Segev saying that evidence in the archives gives the impression that Mossad agents and their handlers didn't know who was responsible. I suggest we tighten the whole thing up into one paragraph describing both views (I don't think we need a long list of "me too"s) which can be used in the other 2-3 articles that have this exact same information. I don't care if we use "anti-Zionist" or not. I do think we should stick to RS, which Giladi for one doesn't seem to be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. We dont need to go into too much depth, we do have an article about this. Would you like to propose a draft paragraph?  nableezy  - 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that my edit is far from a solution, hopefully one small step in the right direction. I think it would be better if those writers currently described as anti-Zionist are clarified as being anti-Zionist according to Mendes. I mainly wanted to make clear that the list actually came from a source, a source that's clearly identified in several other articles that have a near-identical paragraph. I think wee ought to be clear that there are two prevailing theories about who did the bombings and that the advocates of both theories are seen by their opponents as having an agenda. Agreed? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm alarmed that anyone should be thinking of labelling writers at all in this article. It's a history article and has to be written up from the works of historians. If historians differ then both views must be given, but we really ought not to attach labels to our sources. And if writers aren't being used as sources in the article then it isn't relevant to mention them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Fitzgerald's edits
Jim Fitzgerald made a number of edits to the article today. Most of them are problematic. When some were removed, he restored them without discussion.
 * adds that only Jews "affiliated with zionism or suspected in espionage against their home countries" were expelled from Egypt and Libya, without a source. There are other unsoruced claims in this edit.
 * labels JCPA as "pro-Israel" and World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries as "pro-Zionist" again without a source and not explaining why either is necessary.
 * uses the "Historical Boy's Clothing" site as a source. Obviously not WP:RS. This also contradicts sourced information lower in the article.
 * added that "The Jews from Arab states vociferously reject the idea that they fled Arab lands as refugees..." this generalization is not supported by the source. And even if it was, the source is an opinion piece by an activist and should be attributed. Also, correct information from the op-ed was already summarized in the article, as we shall see below.
 * added a quote from a primary source about a statement made in 1947 that any injustice against the Palestinians will "disturb the harmony" with the Jews. Linking that to the Jews leaving without a secondary source saying so is WP:OR
 * removed summary of op-ed discussed above and expanded with quotes. WP:UNDUE.
 * added a quote from Tom Segev. While the information is relevant and properly sourced, it repeats the summary of the situation two paragraphs above. Not sure if this is necessary.

These edits should be reverted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am addressing your comments right now (today), some of which I find substantiated.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  08:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So far today you have:
 * commented out sourced information so it is not displayed to the reader and labeled a historian as "Pro-Zionist".
 * added a source (I'm not sure about its reliability) that doesn't say only Jews involved in the Lavon affair left Egypt, while the text you added yesterday to the article does.
 * added a self published source as a reference, not exactly sure for what.
 * All this combined with your edits yesterday is quite unacceptable and obviously tendentious. I'd like to remind you this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Historical Boy's Clothing" ?! LOL. Marokwitz (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Improving referencing
I'm going through and checking on the quality of the references throughout. One thing I've noticed straight away is that we have separate citations of a paper or papers by Ada Aharoni. This matters because it would seem that Aharoni is an expert whose work we should be using in the article. I can't currently access the text of the Peace Review paper. Can anyone? Is it exactly the same as the one for which we have full text on a website, with the same title? If it is, then we should use the Peace Review reference throughout, with a non-paywalled weblink only if we're sure there's no copyvio. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Current population size by country
This could be useful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be useful for last 2008-2009 population estimation. I also propose to add 1972 census data (if available), since major exodus waves had occured during 1947-1972.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this document, though? Who published it? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * American Jewish Year Book 2005 published it, based on demographic data from 2004. References available within the text.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf is the most accurate estimate of the world Jewish population, and it's updated as of 2010. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From Jewish Data Bank: "It should be emphasized, however, that theelaboration of worldwide estimates for the Jewish populations of the various countries is beset with difficulties and uncertainties.16 The problem of data consistency is particularly acute, given the very different legal systems and organizational provisions under which Jewish communities operate in different countries. In spite of our keen efforts to create a unified analytic framework for Jewish population studies, users of Jewish population estimates should be aware of these difficulties and of the inherent limitations of our estimates." I also saw that the document spent a lot of time discussing "core", "enlarged" and other definitions of "Jew". If we can use these estimates at all, we must include a number of caveats. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but these caveats would apply equally (if not moreso) to the AJC 2005 figures. The fact that the study speaks so openly about the methodological issues and other limitations speaks positively, rather than negatively, about its reliability. In fact, the Jewish Data Bank has provided updates to the AJC estimates too. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Early Exodus stages and exodus from the West Bank of Jordan
There is currently no information on the early exodus of Jews from areas in Middle East, which began in 1941 from Iraq, following the Farhud. Exodus numbers do not include about 10,000 Jews whe fled Iraq between 1941-1948, since the census is for 1948. In addition, there are no numbers in the table and anywhere on expulsion of Jews from the West Bank of Jordan (including Jerusalem) in 1947-1948, not speaking of early expulsion of Jews from Gaza in 1929. At least the numbers for Jewish exodus from Jordan (West Bank) should be mentioned - about 10,000 people turned displaced until 1967, when Jordan lost control of the area.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jordan also confiscated around 15,000 dunmans of Jewish owned property in the West Bank. Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me correct myself - it is 40,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from the West Bank of Jordan (and Gaza). This number surprised me, I will update this in the table.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

page move
"muslim lands" deceptive as countries like bangladesh are secular and thus not sislamic. hence moved to the seemingly, at least, uncontroversial "majority tag" which is factual and not up for pov debate.(Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * without going into the validity of your claim, can you please elaborate on how your move would have corrected the problem?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you avoid such contentious, unilateral behavior Lihaas. Don't game the system to enforce your views upon everyone else. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Refugees
There are some tragic stories concerning ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab and Muslim lands, but there are also accounts of many Jews leaving in good order or even from choice, because they chose to emigrate to Israel.

Published in Haaretz on 15 August 2003 (available at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/magic-carpet.html since it's no longer at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=329736&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y ) is an account that claims the compensation claim is largely political, brought up now as a counter to Palestinian claims for compensation. Claiming for compensation has never been popular, not least because it runs counter to the standard Zionist narrative, by which all the Jews wanted nothing more than to pack their bags and go to Palestine.

Here are some of the comments of the actual "refugees" themselves:
 * ... The organization's claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC's formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations."
 * Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."
 * In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."
 * The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC's political department, asked the organization's secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg's Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of "Sephardi Jews as refugees" ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.

Obviously, there are valid claims for compensation - but it's wrong to suggest there are 800,000 of them, and there may be rather few. That's on top of any problems because the claim wasn't registered within a reasonable time. Templar98 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Palestinian refugees have received UNRWA support equal to x3 times of property worth, they claim to loose in 1947-1967. Many of them won a reasonably good life in Americas and Europe, as many other Arab and Muslim immigrants. Hence, by your logic their case should be deleted from the pages of history?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not soap-boxing the worth of the claims, but attempting to scale the compensation owed to the those of the 800,000 who were ethnically cleansed. If we don't know of any such refugees then we can only state that prominent Mizrahi Jews deny being refugees.
 * You cannot loose claim of 800,000 refugees by giving 3 quotes of people from a POV source, which quotes another POV source, which quotes 3 personal opinions (if indeed all were quoted correctly). The fact is the majority of Jews from Middle East were ethnically cleansed and they personally were hurt and disposessed, even if some of them didn't experience personal persecution and a minority also joined the immigration for Zionist reasons. Your case is simple WP:UNDUE, bacause the majority of Mizrachi and Maghrebi Jews lost their assets and fled, with only 2/3 going to Israel, meaning Zionism wasn't the greatest reason for flight. It is well explained in Gat's The Jewish exodus from Iraq: 1948-1951.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor can we say "The official position of the Israeli government is that Jews from Arab lands are considered refugees, and it considers their rights to property left in countries of origin as valid and existent.[108]" when the reference says only that the IOG "renews the March 3rd 2002 decision number 1544 relating to the "Registration of claims of Jews from Arab Countries" which itself renewed the September 28, 1969 decision number 34 on the subject". For 21 years Israel doesn't seem to have recognised any refugees and the only thing we know has happened since is that registration has been held open. Templar98 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 800,000 number is sourced and you won't be able to change it by giving two examples of people who say they weren't refugees, certainly not by using an opinion piece written by an activist sourced to a web site that doesn't even come close to being considered a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is something deeply suspicious about a claim of ethnic cleansing for which only a small percentage of the victims can be proven to have been forced from their homes. Most of them (eg almost all the Iraqi Jews and all the Moroccan Jews) left in their own time with ample opportunity to settle their affairs.
 * It would appear that Israel did not even start registering any possible property claims until 1969 and have released no figures for the numbers affected.
 * Under these conditions, attempts to treat all of the 800,000 as refugees looks like severe POV based on nothing whatsoever. Templar98 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making it a joke, please don't do any more edits here, which are WP:OR. Make some contributions instead of rewriting history.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called cooperation with other editors. The reliable sources tell us 800,000 Jews made Aliyah from Arab and Muslim countries and makes us think that some were indeed ethnically cleansed (eg Egypt after the Lavon Affair and again in 1956). However, the sources (including an Israeli newspaper) show us that others moved of their own free will. If you know more about this topic than me, you'll want to tell us how many Jews fled pogroms and how many chose to go to Israel (and the numbers who chose to go to the US, which may have been rather more). Templar98 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, multiple historians tell us hundreds of thousands left Arab and Muslim lands as refugees, and while in your personal opinion it might be "deeply suspicious", your personal opinion is irrelevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll wish to list those historians and the numbers they provide with references. Along with what details they provide and whether they describe the move as "ethnic cleansing", the term widely applied to the Nakba.
 * However, I see you're already rolling back from 800,000 to "100s of thousands". Templar98 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not rolling back from anything. The sources are in the article. This is not some kind of discussion forum where you score virtual points for being "clever", so you can cut that stuff out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Templar98 in that I do not like how all Jews who left Arab lands are being put into the same pile as those who left voluntarily and that the 'pull factor' is commonly left out like this sentence from the intro- "Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled from or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution, antisemitism and political instability." There's no attempt to seperate those who were expelled from those who left, and it says nothing about the pull factors of creating their jewish state, or moving to america. Passionless (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide reliable sources discussing this, then we can discuss what should go in the article. I'm sure you both understand we're not going to change the article based on personal opinions and an opinion piece. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Passonless - very large numbers of these Jews are known to have been ingathered - the Iraqi Jews were particularly horrified that they'd given up their Iraqi citizenship and were treated like dirt by the European founders of Israel. The article should be discussing that, which may even be better documented than any ethnic cleansing. Though we must remember that some of the latter did go on too, particularly in Egypt after the Lavon affair and in 1956. Templar98 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Refugees from Turkey
Where there any?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I'd have to check, but from memory Turkey allowed free emigration so whoever wanted to leave could have done so freely without having to forfeit their property or citizenship. Keep in mind Turkey was pretty secular at the time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of data expansion over muslim countries, we should add additional info on Turkey, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan etc. There we should explain that Turkey wasn't part of the forced exodus, and give data on forced exodus from Iran, Kurdistan and Afganistan. In addition the more time passes by the more it is evident a separation should be made between the main wave of forced exodus - 1947-1972, and the later immigration after 1972. Especially this is relevant to the situation of Iranian jews, which greatly deteriorated after 1978, and Turkish jews who were increasingly attacked since 1990s, and the community increasingly reduced. Before the slamists took control both countries kept significant jewish communities, unlike arab states (though now it seems those communities might not last for long).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, but its out of my sphere of knowledge Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose to create a template on "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands"
This issue is heavy enough to have a template of its own, rather relying on simple Antisemitism template (which is now in tact). In addition, there are substantially different basics in this exodus event than just simple antisemitism, since we are speaking on more than a persecution - a nationalistic conflict of arabs and jews in the background.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Object. No need to break up wikipedia with context forks.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed the Aliyah template without explanation.
This article is featured in the template, so i have restored it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead.
Today a change was made to the lead by. I reverted this change and was subsequently re-reverted by. The change altered a sentence in the lead from "'Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled from or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution, antisemitism and political instability.'" to make it read "'Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries to follow the zionist dream, antisemitism and political instability.'" Passionless left the following edit summary with his revert. "Undid revision 417187704 by Steven J. Anderson (talk)the pull factors must be mentioned as well, leaving them out would be tendentious" This edit is rather obviously bad for a number of reasons. Obviously if the IP who originally made it had been interested in actually improving Wikipedia, he wouldn't have left the grammar in such a fractured and nonsensical state. That aside, when Passionless saw the edit made and reverted once, the collegial thing to do would have been to come to the talk page and discuss it. Unfortunately, he just reverted instead and left it for me to bring the dispute here. Since I'm well aware of the 1RR restrictions on I-P conflict articles, I'm not about to touch the article again, not even to correct the abysmal grammatical state it's been left in.

Enough about process, now to the substance. Although the sentence was not cited to any reliable source in either form, this is not always required in the lead, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, where, presumably, detailed references may be found. A quick perusal of the article will show that the first version of the sentence in question far more accurately summarizes the article which has a lot more to say about persecution and antisemitism in Arab and Muslim countries than it has to say about any so-called "pull factors" or a "zionist dream." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the grammar, and 'zionist dream' did seem a bit odd so I changed it, but it is mentioned in the article that Jews left the arab world due to zionism. It may seem under represented in the article, but that's because it would be quite sily to say under each national heading that 'people also left due to Zionism', over and over again, so it is said once at the top of the section on various nations. Passionless   -Talk  04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

changing page name
It is a bit strange that the title says "Arab and Muslim lands", meaning that except Arabs and Muslims no body belongs to those lands - a dubious statement, which emphasises Pan-arabism. I propose to change to a more balanced title "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". I do not make it official suggestion for moving, but just want some opinions on this matter, or any better ideas.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please share.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I said I can't see a problem with that. Well, maybe the phrase "Arab and Muslim" is not altogether accurate but I can't think of a viable alternative. But "countries" probably makes more sense than "lands", at least it would seem to on the face of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanx, appreciate your support.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with changing it to "countries" either. Can't say I feel very strongly either way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It also nudges me, that there might be a shorter or better title, but i think countries is more correct.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, i see there is a point to do so, thus i raise official suggestion on renaming the page.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Population sections on Arab countries and non-Arab Muslim countries
The sections were split and separate entries were added on Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and other countries and territories, as proposed earlier.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yehuda Shenhav's words
I trimmed his quotation I find repetitive and lacking usefulness. The remaining quote sufficiently characterizes his opinion. What really missing is the arguments on which his position is based. This addition would be encyclopedic improvement. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Section that doesn't belong
What is the section "Evacuations of Jews under the British Mandate for Palestine" doing in this article? Nobody was expelled from the country. Is there a case for keeping it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 August 2011
 * Take another look at the title of the article. It says "exodus", not "expulsions". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody left the country either. They just moved from one city to a nearby city.  It is not about the topic of the page. Zerotalk 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is background section, so there is no problem. Anyway, during the Mandate and the previous Ottoman periods, expulsions and flight resulted in displacement, rather than "exit from Empire/Mandate" (case of Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds) - i must also mention the 1934 Thrace pogroms and the 1941 Farhud, where Jews turned displaced in their thousands, but their exit from Turkey and Iraq country was largely delayed until late 1940s and early 1950s, when they had a country willing to accept them - Israel. It is essential to mention it in the background, together with the evacuations within Mandate Palestine, which the sources describe as prequel to general anti-Jewish attitude throughout the Arab and Muslim world.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Support, the page was renamed.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose to rename the page to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. It is a bit strange that the title says "Arab and Muslim lands", since the meaning is that except Arabs and Muslims nobody actually belongs to those lands - a dubious statement, which might be percepted as Pan-Arabism or some kind of ethnic supremacism across Middle East and North Africa. I propose to change to a more balanced title in this regard. Please vote Support in favor of this move or Oppose if you are against (please provide a reason).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Greyshark09. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment my knowledge of the middle east post Ottoman-pre WWII is shakey, but wasn't some territory owned/controlled by non-Muslim nations like France, UK, Italy, and Spain. And wasn't the British Mandate for Palestine only an administration not a state, and weren't there some unclaimed lands like parts of the desert today in Saudi Arabia? So for these reasons I think lands is more appropriate than countries, right? Passionless   -Talk  22:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you beat me to it Passionless. I just tried to post exactly the same thing and got an edit conflict :) Gatoclass (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Country" and "state" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Here's an interesting article on the subject. I think "lands" is a bit awkward. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need clarification then the exodus was from Arab and Muslim countries, which is the main issue of this article. Historic background also deals with expulsions of Jews by Arabs in Iraq and Palestinian Mandate under British partial (Iraqi Kingdom) of full control (British Mandate for Palestine), but this is just background, not the main topic of exodus.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment But isn't the scope of this article the waves between 1947 and 1972. That is the impression I get from the layout. Evacuation from the British controlled area is under "Background". The lead adds to this confusion since it dates back farther yet it says "countries". The concern over wording that reads like pan-Arabism might be valid so please address it if you lean oppose.Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. "Land" is just a more picturesque word for "country", so "country" reads much better. Neither means "nation state". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Greyshark, are you saying the present title is "Pan-Arabist" and 'countries' would be more neutral?--Metallurgist (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes in Middle Eastern context it is. The word "land" (Ard' in Arabic) has an important meaning in Arab nationalism.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with Greyshark09.The present title suggests that the lands the Jews left behind "belonged" to Arabs and Muslims.Headhitter (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

break
So it seems like there's consensus to move? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we calculate the "comment", does it equal to abstain?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, even in google there is an evidense for greater use of "countries", rather than "lands". There are twise more results on "Jewish exodus from Arab countries". It can be seen all across the sources, like here, , , Greyshark09 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Frederico, judith, Headhitter, Greyshark and I support. Passionless and Gatoclass oppose. Not sure about Cptnono (seems like a support) and Metallurgist (seems like an oppose). So that's 5 for, 2 against, 2 unsure. Still looks like consensus to move. If anyone disagrees, please say something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Google results and the Pan-Arabism mentions are sufficient for me to support.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must add that after revewing results in Google Scholar (which is illiminating self-repeating results), i can not see clear preference of "Arab lands" or "Arab countries" - both mentioned ("Arab states" rarely used). As no clear preference given in letarature, the decision on page name should therefore rely on logic.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that according to WP:MOVE the nominator shoud not be counted in votes, so excepting me the results are as following
 * Support - 5 (Frederico, judith, Headhitter, No More Mr Nice Guy, Cptnono)
 * Oppose - 2 (Passionless, Gatoclass)
 * Neutral - 1 (Metallurgist)
 * There is a solid majority for moving the page. Any final objections?
 * The page is renamed according to consensus.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wouldn't a more accurate title be "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim majority countries"? Actually the word "exodus" makes it sound as if the Jews living there were pleased to be delivered from those countries. As it happens, I'm sure they were in hindsight however I'm also sure they would have preferred to have been left in peace.

Also unless I am mistaken, the 2008 population numbers don't add up. The table says <6,400, however when you add up the individual numbers you get <4,840. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.28.77 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources, offers, and 1975 Iraqi government ads in Toronto Star, New York Times, and Le Monde
It should be mentioned how different Arab governments have said they would allow former Jewish citizens of their nations to return and live in the Arab world (Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, etc). Putting aside if one considers this a credible offer or possible. The clearest example of this (again putting aside what one thinks of it) was again by the Iraqi government on December 11, 1975 putting full page advertisements in numerous Western newspapers (The New York Times, Toronto Star, and Le Monde) asking any Iraqi Jews who left Iraq to feel free to return to Iraq (again putting aside whether one views this as a genuine offer or not). This page is sourced and is done by someone with a Ph. D. Also the reality of the existence of in particular the Iraqi government advertisements of December 11, 1975 (calling for any Iraqi Jews to come back to Iraq) is admitted even by ideologically Zionist website  which state that pro-Zionist groups "scoffed at" the Iraqi government offer.

This info should be included and the sources are valid (written by someone with a Ph. D. and even corroborated to exist in the case of the December 11, 1975 Iraqi government advertisements by pro-Zionist organizations), especially if writings of the "JCPA" is included as the JCPA is an obviously partisan think-tank associated with the Israeli Likud party in particular (so any noting of the legitimate sources I'm providing, putting aside the pro-Zionist source corroborating in particular the 1975 Iraqi government advertisements, being partisan to one side should also then have the "JCPA" links and writings removed for partisan reasons). This info should be included in the "compensation" section as it by itself (the offer, whether one believes it or things like it are genuine or not) would be an offer of not just "compensation" but a return to where one originally came from in the first place. Putting aside that one of the most thorough discussions of the whole issue has been done by Professor Shenhav.Historylover4 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS and WP:V go to the WP:RSN and get an opinion if those sources are reliable.Thank you--Shrike (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps digging up copies of the newspaper articles in question would be preferable. Without these you have the potential of quoting a crank who took things out of context.  -- Frotz(talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ad certainly does appear in NYT Dec 11, 1975, page 51. It offers to take back Jews who left since 1948, with full civil equality. It doesn't mention confiscated property though. Zerotalk 02:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem the ad is primary source we need some good RS that talk about this issue--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would articles written by assorted Israeli and Jewish thinkers calling the ads disingenuous suffice? -- Frotz(talk) 05:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

All histories I am familiar with
remark that in many of these communities, Zionist emissaries long before 1948 were active in encouraging the Jews in Arab countries (Libya, Iraq, Yemen are particular instances of strongly documented incentives) to perform aliyah. This is regarded as a significant factor, and is grossly underplayed in this article in order to showcase the persecution hence flight theme. The arc of time is ignored in the lead. I guess there's a lot of work to do, but as it stands this is a travesty of an article, the sort of trash you get in propaganda, in the endeavour to make a perfect parallel between the nakba and some pseudo-historical reverse nakba, occurring almost contemporaneously. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an attempt by the Zionist organization to encourage immigration, but their attempts and success until 1948 War was close to zero. Practically, there had been a constant low level flow of Jews back and forth between Sephardic and Mizrahi communities to those in Galilee, Jerusalem and Hebron (without any relation to modern Zionism); it increased in 19th century, but without any organized attempt of the Jewish Agency and the Zionist organizations (specifically in Yemen and Kurdistan) and became really significant in Libya and Iraq following the 1945 Tripoli pogrom and Farhud accordingly. Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews mostly were very much reluctant to leave for Southern Syria of the Ottomans or later British Palestine. Throughout the exodus, wealthy Jews streamed to Europe and US, rather than to the unstable and young state of Israel, which is quiet a good indication that the push factor was much stronger than the pull factor. The Arab media indeed tried to present to exodus as a covert operation of Mossad and Jewish Agency to "convert" or "abduct" the "Arab Jews", who were peacefully living with their Arab neighbours; however, most accounts show the exodus was rather a massive flight in fear of violence and disposession, loosely coordinated by Israeli agents.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that much of the narrative is generic and keyed to a rhetorical, non factual premise. It was an integral part of Zionist policy to draw in the diaspora, it was a fundamental key to its program, and was active throughout the Arab world (often encountering resistance) in the 1940s. The article gives the distinct impression that aliyah post 1948 was due to some internal antisemitism, persecution, pogroms and panic. It was predominantly due to rising conflicty of Arab states with Israel, a lowering of income, messianic hopes, and open incentives to immigrate. Antisemitism had little to do with it, 'flight' is mostly rubbish, and most were not motivated by some calculation their lives, rather than their economic futures, were in danger.
 * The Yemen case I edited recently shows this, as the Egyptian example I did years ago (I know the Libyan and Iraqi cases well). There was no 'massive flight out of fear' in neither of these cases. The successive wars (the Lavon Affair in 1954 and the Suez war of 56, and the Arab boycotts after successive clashes between Israel and Arab states 1948-1967 made life difficult. The massive effort by Isrtael to draw in the diaspora is almost invisible, . But, I suggest you reread the whole article through, and see if you can understand what someone like myself sees: an attempt to write as if some instantaneous panic swept Jewish communities all over the Arab world in the vicinity of 48, reciprocating the nakba. That's how it reads to me, and there was no such thing.
 * Still, I don't want to be polemical. I'm just shocked by the tendentiousness of the article, which can easily be improved by simply citing the standard academic histories (not Beit Or or whoever she is) of each Jewish community. No gov docs or lachrymose websites are needed, because there are many very good academic works covering every case.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm citing mostly Benny Morris, who is also the main source for the Palestinian exodus article. If Morris can be a good source for the Palestinian exodus article, i don't see how he can be discharged here. Morris clearly said that after 1948 "ground was practically burning under the Jewish legs in Arab countries" and that there was very little choice for the Jewish communities what to do and where to go. Certainly, arrival to Maabarot was not their key priority, and saying that 1 million people moved and abandoned their lives because of promises without a solid reason is non-sense.
 * some remarks - Lavon affair is not a war (exaggeration), and of course your position correlates the view that the Jewish exodus had been a Zionist operation to draw more sources to counter the Arabs. However, it would be rediculous to write as has someone suggested in the past:
 * "Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries to follow the zionist dream, antisemitism and political instability.".
 * Aside from being funny, this suggestion clearly shows the Arab League position on the matter.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a visceral dislike of generalizations. I am familiar with the particular histories of most of those communities, and the motivations which led to aliyah vary from one to another, and though Morris is an excellent source on his own field, statements like "ground was practically burning under the Jewish legs in Arab countries" only blur things. If only because the round figure reminds me that Ben-Gurion had elaborated, against his own Jewish Agency, a "one million plan" involving both European and Mizrahi Jews in June 1943, before pogroms in Libya or Aden, and throughout the Middle East, as the Allied Forces won territory, the Mossad Aliyah Bet was active in sending emissaries to the communities, and Jewish Palestinian soldiers attached to the British army were active in reviving Zionist aspirations several years before the State of Israel came into being.
 * If then you look at particularistic histories, like that of Yemeni Jews (I've just edited that page with some of the relevant info), or Libyan Jews, the reasons for mass emigration are not reducible to flight and fear of Arabs. Maurice M. Roumani, (The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement, Sussex Academic Press, 2008, see esp. here, which registers a quotation dismissing the thesis of our article as a myth)provides for Libyan Jews several historical factors.
 * (a)The racial laws under Fascist Italy of 1938
 * (b)the deportation of Jews to concentration camps in Libya, Tunisia and Europe,
 * (c)the 1945 and 1948 pogroms and imminent Libyan independence as an Arab state (in Libya the Italian community's probable fate, as violent colonizers, together with postwar economic turmoil caused by their return to Italy)
 * (d)factors 1-3 left the community hopeless for a better future in Libya.
 * (e)Palestinian Jewish soldiers’ rehabilitation of the community in the war period had an impact
 * (f) Zionist mobilisation ‘brought Libyan Jews to a state bordering on euphoria for aliyah'.
 * Differential factors apply. Messianism was an important factor in Yemen, it was not in Libya.
 * That's just one example of the point not made. It was, long before 'flight' took place, a specific part of Zionist policy to bring Jews in Arab countries to Palestine, irrespective of conditions there. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt, the Jewish communities in ME and NA underwent a series of events, which eventually led to their collapse, and it is not correct to say that messianism brought Yemenite Jews to Israel (even though indeed there was such factor, which initiated immigration as early as 1881) or that only the Farhud fasciliated the exodus of Iraqi Jews (even though several thousand Jews fled Iraq as a result), or only the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1947-1948 was the only cause. There is a discussion on this in the article, and indeed it should be expanded for each community case. In any case, the Zionist policy to immigrate Jews to Israel was quite unsuccessful unless the efforts of the Arab nationalism, which brought to extreme violence (Aleppo, Aden, Tripoli, Oujda and Jerada and other cities), physical expulsion (Egypt in 1956) and cancellation of citizenship (Algeria in 1962) and the general anti-Israeli and accordingly anti-Jewish atmosphere in the Arab World and some adjustent Muslim countries (Iran and Afghanistan).Greyshark09 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ‘Immigration . .was the heart and souil of the Zionist movement; it was perceived as the progenitor of the Jewish state. With the “ingathering of the exiles” as an ideological cornerstone and political independence as a goal, immigration became the spearhead of the Zionist battle. Devorah Hakohen, Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and After, Syracuse University Press, 2003 p.1
 * This, the background I cited above, Ben-Gurion's figures in June 1944, all of the facts concerning the long concentrated planning for mass emigration to Israel on its declaration is ignored, in favour of a mythic narrative that everyone just up stakes and emigrated to get out of an antisemitic, hostile Arab world. It's comic book, polemical history. It's pointless listing a handful of pogroms over a decade in a vast world. They played a factor of course, as did the 24 pogroms or massacres Morris cites as attributable to the Haganah in the 1948 did to the Arab flight. Weizmann himself at the time said it was not this or that pogrom in Baghdad or Cairo or Tripoli that was worrying as much as the fear that in the future a hostile Muslim majority, in the Muslim world that 'has treated the Jews with great tolerance' might, under pressure of the new nationalism (of which Zionism was the most egregious example for its Arab neighbourts) wreck harm. (Roumani p.109). In any case there are dozens of books on this not cited in the bibliography, and the sourcing here is generally disgraceful, so plenty of work can fix much of this, as you suggest. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not contesting the fact that this article still requires much work and restructuring; though i consider it to be in a much better shape than prior to my intervention a year ago (I'm working on most refugee issues in the ME, including Refugees of the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, Kurdish refugees and Palestinian refugees as well - recently the Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait). Jews were mostly escaping uncertainty, sporadical violence, sanctions as well as promises for better life and Zionist aspirations as you have said; no one can also put his finger to the only exact reason for the flight of nearly 1,000,000 Assyrians from Iraq through the last decade, but it is a fact - we again saw sporadic violence against an ethnoreligious minority, a non-intervening government and a general atmosphere of hatred. In the end, except in the Kurdish controlled region, the Assyrian population of Iraq has collapsed. They were not expelled, not officially sanctioned, no genocide made on Assyrians through the last decade (even though fanatic violence took hundreds of lives), but they collapsed and the reasons are clear and no different than in the case of the Jewish exodus several decades earlier.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Grayshark is correct. I don't think any serious historian contests the fact that the Jews in most Arab countries were subject to discrimination and physical violence. Almost all of them left, leaving most of their possessions behind. They were pushed out. Some may have left because of ideological or financial reasons, but saying that's the main reason is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apropos. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

new section

 * New section for new topic by -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you restored a tag that says "This article may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject to be verifiable and neutral" when it has references from historians, peer-reviewed journals and various mainstream media outlets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to open a new section. Now can you address the substance of my comment? There are 129 refs in this article, and over 20 books in the references section. Why did you restore the tag? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Figures regarding European displaced persons
This one needs calcluating: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_DPs-ENGL.html

The israelis claiomed that 550,000 holocaust survivors had settled in Israel: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205817.pdf

150,000 arrived from Romania by 1950. http://www1.yadvashem.org/download/education/conf/Stark.pdf Their numbers are not included in offical DP figures and the Romanian Holocaust was largely independent of the German run holocaust most people are familiar with.

The British worked to minimized the definition of DP's so as to prevent them being allowed to enter Palestine. As a result survivors were forced to share accomomdation with former Nazi collaborators from Easter Europe who the Brits gave DP status to. Some of the collaborators had been in Einsatz Gruppen. I can find the reference for this if you're interested.

After Kielce hundreds of thousands of Jews left Poland and headed to Israel, avoiding the British sector where they were regarded as Poles.

The figure of 136,000 refers to survivors of German camps and not to Jewish refugees as a whole. the comparison and the wording are highly offensive and designed to misunderestimate Ashkenazi suffering.

Please remove the reference, which is not necessary for the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, thanks for clarification - the source is not precise.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Algerian nationality code
«Almost all Jews of Algeria left upon independence in 1962, particularly as "the Algerian Nationality Code of 1963 excluded non-Muslims from acquiring citizenship",[32] allowing citizenship only to those Algerians who had Muslim paternal fathers and grandfathers» : This is false !

The text is here : http://www.joradp.dz/Jo6283/1963/018/FP307.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.105.115.10 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question source
Why is the article of Meron being treated as a third-party source? He himself was a major player in the propaganda war. We also have some of his references copy-pasted in here verbatim. Zerotalk 11:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me he is expert on the topic.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If he is an "expert" on the topic perhaps you could point to any per reviewed journals or academic imprints that have published his work on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he isn't an expert. I said he isn't a third party.  He's certainly an expert on the current Israeli position since he largely developed it.  Yehouda Shenhav (Tel Aviv University) described it in Haartez: The WOJAC figure who came up with the idea of "Jewish refugees" was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders - and he termed these policies "ethnic cleansing." Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases ("Magic Carpet," "Operation Ezra and Nehemiah") in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the "fact" that Jewish migration was the result of "Arab expulsion policy."  I don't mind Meron being cited, but he should be cited as a protagonist and not as an independent source of facts. Zerotalk 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Now looking more carefully, I see a more clearcut problem. Except for the first sentence and one slightly changed sentence in the middle, this section is an exact copy-paste from Meron's article. The footnote is also a verbatim copy. This makes it a copyright violation and we are required to remove it, which I will now do. Zerotalk 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now to look at the text to see what is retrievable. As shown above, Meron was an Israeli official who developed the "Arab expulsion plan" version of the story. No surprise that his article is poor propaganda. Some points: Zerotalk 10:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "In a key address before the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on November 14, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partition plan for Palestine...".  This "key address" was just a short comment by a committee member, less than one column of text.  There was no such thing as the "Political Committee" (it was the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question).  And Nov 14 was not 5 days before the partition vote.  Three errors in one sentence!  The last error is explained by the fact that it was actually Nov 24, but it isn't just a typo since Meron repeats the same error in the footnote.
 * 2) "... Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following key statement in connection with that plan:"  And then follows two excerpts presented as quotations. Examination of the original (UN document A/AC.14/SR.30) shows that they aren't quotations at all, but a summary.  As the name of the document indicates, this is not a "verbatim record" but a "summary record", i.e. some secretary wrote a summary of what Heykal said.  It reads "Mr. Heykal Pasha (Egypt) said that..." (in the French version "M. Heykal Pacha (Egypte) déclare que...") with no quotation marks or any other indication that it is quoting.
 * 3) In the citation to this non-quotations, Meron writes "The original language of this statement is French, so we have altered the U.N's English translation to bring it into harmony with the equally official French text."  I was anxious to see what he had changed but it took a while to spot.  It comes back to the problem of this not actually being a quotation.  In the English version it is too obviously a report from an observer: "If the United Nations decided to partition Palestine", whereas a quotation would have "If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine".  This English idiomatic way of third-party reporting is not used in French, so he uses the excuse of the French version (which is also obviously a third-person report but not in this way) to change "decided" into "decides", "lived" into "live", and two similar cases. That's all he changed. Like I said, poor propaganda.
 * 4) Naturally Meron would omit anything that would weaken his claim that Heykal was making bloodthirsty threats, so it is not surprising he missed the sentence "It was not always possible for a government to maintain order when a people saw its blood brothers massacred in a neighbouring country."
 * 5) Between the two (non-)excerpts, Meron writes "Heykal Pasha then elaborated..." but the second excerpt came before the first.
 * 6) in the following paragraph, Meron writes "the proposition made six years earlier by the Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni to Hitler of a "final solution" for the Jews of Arab countries, including Palestine."  A blatant lie.
 * 7) Meron summarises his analysis of Heykal's statement as "Heykal Pasha had publicly and very formally announced a program to expel Jews from Arab countries" but Heykal did not say a single syllable about expulsion let alone a plan for expulsion.  Meron just made up that conclusion out of thin air.
 * 8) In his conclusions Meron writes "as we have seen, in a good many cases, Jews were forced out well before the Palestinian exodus", but there are hardly any examples in his article.
 * I think this is a convincing demonstration that Meron is not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the sources and references are closely tied to the subject
Almost all of the sources and references are one sided, closely tied to the subject or holds point of view which promote subject of this article as a fact. Problem is that subject of this article is highly controversial and by no means established fact.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "as a fact"? The article is quiet clear that there are several points of view on the issue and the title is "exodus" (neutral), not "expulsion" or "flight" and not "immigration" or "voluntary Zionist aliyah". The main section of the articles describes a series of events - the exodus is a fact. What are the reasons for the exodus can be discussed and indeed is discussed.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK ! I see where this going, so forget the "fact" established or invented ! Almost all of the sources and references are one sided and closely tied to the subject ! I couldn't find any authors/sources which corroborate and/or confirm the main point and subject nor this article as a whole - no Arab, Muslim or any other then Israeli and/or Jewish authors and/or sources are referenced ! This would constitute extreme bias in all other Wikipedia articles/cases sensitive as this one, but not here !--Santasa99 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Then give the sources by Muslims if you have any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.39.36 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Remark
Regarding your remark, i fixed one sentence that was cut during the section relocation. Was that the problem with the edit?GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you for fixing it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH playing with Iranian Jews
Cleanup has been made because Israeli user User:Greyshark09 continues with distorting Iranian history. As far as I can see, purpose of this article was to provide information about Jewish forced migrations (1) driven by Israel-Arab conflict and Arab nationalism (2) mainly from 1948 until the early 1970s (3). I have not clue how Iran fits into this since there wasn't any forced migration of Iranian Jews (1), Iran isn't Arab country and it didn't participated in Israel-Arab conflict (2), and there wasn't any migration of larger scale to 1970s (3). The only fault of Iran is that it's a Muslim country, so thanks to persecutions in Muslim Arab countries and 1955 pogrom in Muslim Turkey, it got into evil group of "Muslim persecutors". A nice WP:SYNTH, especially in time of increased Iran-Israel rhetoric conflict. However, it's not the only problem, we have factual accuracy issues also. According reliable sources and censuses (all well sourced), we have 50,000 Jews in 1900, 65,232 in 1956, 60,683 in 1966 and 62,258 in 1976. That's why section about Iran has been moved to "Aftermath". Historians agree there were some migrations but obivously in minor scales, Sanasarian also states they had economic motives. Ex-Mossad David Littman claims 70,000 emigrated from 1948–1978 (included in text), but such numbers make little sense since it implies enormous birth rate from 1900-1956 while Jewish community was highly urbanized in Yazd, Shiraz, Tehran, Isfahan and Hamadan. Even less sense we can found in previous version unsourced claims about "increasing antisemitism since Israeli creation". In Persian urban centres during Iran-Arab disputes? Pure Sci-Fi. Not even Khomeini lately propagated anything against Jews. In fact, due to Arab-Israeli conflicts, Iran received many Iraqi Jews. Regarding migrations in IRI period, from censuses we know that Jewish population dropped to 26,354 in 1986 due to Iran-Iraq War. Considering number (35,000), percentage and proportion in multi-million Iranian migration during same period, such phenomenon can't be described as as "mass migration" or "exodus", and there's no WP:RS for it. The most similar case to Iranian is about Bosnian Jews, 15,000 fled thanks to organized US-Israeli help during Yugoslav wars. Similar help (or challenge) stands for Iranian Jews even today - if family emigrate from Iran, they get £30,000 reward. There's no significant difference between Jewish migrations from Iran or North America, it fits more under Aliyah article. User:Greyshark09 has manipulated once again, misusing metaphor from chapter's title From the Rivers of Babylon to the Valleys of Los Angeles: The Exodus and Adaptation of Iranian Jews refering to ancient Babylonia (from book Gatherings In Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration) for making ridiculous article called "Exodus of Iran's Jews" (redirected), despite the fact there is no any "exodus" mentioned in all chapter related to Iran (pages 71-94). He even inserted categories like 1948 Arab–Israeli War and Islam and antisemitism, included it in completely politically and chronologically irrelevant template called "Jewish exodus from Arab countries 1947–1972" , and in this article also. This is pure politically motivated playing with history, an attempt of describing people who voluntarily migrated under danger of war/sanctions and got high cash rewards as "persecuted refugees" or "victims of antisemitism", and even worse - using their numbers as false analogy for justifying expulsion of Palestinians. It may work in some Israeli bulletin of historical revisionism, but not in encyclopaedia. His actions are reverted. --HistorNE (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments on the content that you raise are interesting and deserve discussion but you should not attack Greyshark that way. See WP:AGF.
 * I am not at all aware of the history of Iran but it sounds logical that the case of Iran is different from the case of the other Arab countries given it was on the Western side until Khomeini. Littman is of course not at all a WP:RS source.
 * Anyway, antisemitism in Iran today cannot be denied so all this should be discussed and analyse carefully.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just Anti-Zionism, not Anti-Semitism. --HistorNE (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no... Antisemitism of course. But that's not the question. Let's focus on the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Higly doubtful, check sources below. Regarding Greyshark - see this edit: no discussion, no summaries, no caring about WP:RS, just reverting. Hows possible to WP:AGF with such editor? --HistorNE (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HistorNE, you are personally stalking my edits and attacking me on every page, including your notorious remarks on "POV pushing by Turkish nationalist" and "Propaganda by Israeli user" remarks.GreyShark (dibra) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
I disagree with this redirect. The article and its content are justified given the Exodus of the Iran's Jews is a particular case. All the content from this article could be moved there Pluto2012 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no need for such article because we already have History of Jews in Iran and Persian Jews (overlaping 90%). It's name is unsourced nonsense and it's content implied post-revolutional "mass-migration" driven by "persecution". Pure political pamphlet and WP:OR based on non-reliable media outlets and bad math. However:
 * Regarding numbers: Owing to emigration and natural growth, the number of Jews of Persian origin in Palestine is said to have reached 7,275 in 1926 and some 16,000 souls in 1935 ... An estimated population of some 20,000 to 30,000 Persian emigrants in 1948 ... According to official figures provided by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics and by the Jewish Agency, the number of Persian immigrants who arrived in Israel between May 1948 through the end of December 1989 (i.e., the first decade of the Islamic Revolution in Iran) amounted to 74,148 souls. Considering Iranian censuses (62,258 in 1976; 26,354 in 1986), we get at least 52,000 Iranian Jews who emigrated from Iran during Pahlavi period just to Israel. From 1979 till today almost identical number emigrated from Iran to all other countries. If we consider thousands of Iranian Jews who migrated toward Western countries till 1979, there's no doubt more of them emigrated in Pahlavi then IRI period.
 * Regarding motives: Moreover, because of a variety of historical conditions inside Persia, mainly the absence of state-wide persecution or popular harassment of Jews, freedom of movement and immigration from and into Persia during the years 1948-79 (and actual possibilities for immigration from Persia since the establishment of the Islamic Republic), the Persian immigrants who moved to Israel ordinarily did so out of their own free will. These immigrants, as well as those who settled in Mandatory Palestine, did not perceive themselves as victims, refugees or displaced individuals whose immigration was imposed on them by events or forces beyond their personal control.
 * This citations are from article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community, in American Encyclopædia Iranica, written by David Yeroushalmi (do not confuse him with this namesake), Jewish Israeli professor from Tel Aviv University. --HistorNE (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Article is restored, if you wish to delete it again, please follow RfD.GreyShark (dibra) 16:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Littman
I have removed this : "David Littman puts the total figure of emigrants to Israel in 1948–1978 at 70,000 "

Whatever he did good in his life, he has nothing more than a MSc in history and he remains an anti-Muslim activist given he cannot be dissociated from his wife Bat Ye'or. This makes him "not WP:RS" for the topic.

Pluto2012 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the book The Population of Israel by Roberto Bachi (p.104), the official count of immigrants from Iran for 1948-1968 was 21,349. That is compatible with the Iranian counts and matches other estimates I have seen. Zerotalk 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a table from the Israeli CBS. Zerotalk 05:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with it. Thanks Zero. --HistorNE (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cash for immigration
I think that mentionning this fact is acceptable but this additionnal sentence :
 * " Remaining Iranian Jews dismissed them as "immature political enticements" and said "their national identity was not for sale" ."

is somewhere between WP:OR by generalisation and WP:Undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with it. --HistorNE (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. We can remove this. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Split of section on Iranian Jewish exodus into a separate article
I would like to remind that originally this article began as "Jewish exodus from Arabs lands" or "Jewish exodus from Arab countries". However, after adding Iran, Turkey, Afganistan and Pakistan it was expanded to exodus from "Arab and Muslim lands/countries", which essentially might be WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure we see in leterature exodus from "Arab and Muslim countries/lands", but rather exodus from "Arab countries"/"Arab lands".

We are currently describing here possibly 2 (or even more) separate events - exodus from Arab lands (1947-1970s), which also included some Iranian, Afgani and Pakistani Jews of course; and another large scale Jewish exodus from Iran since 1979 revolution, which resulted from quiet different sircumstances and was essentially notable by itself. I think the Iranian exodus of the late 1970 and 1980s, which is going on to this day (see ) and is related "Exodus of Iran's Jews" ,, should require a separate article, while this one should concentrate on the exodus from Arab countries/lands (possibly we need to drop "and Muslim", per WP:RS). Other editors are welcome to share what they think of this.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 years old's proposal...
 * I agree with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. But I do think splits are needed here. I think this is a good structure for an overall article on the topic. Since we're really talking about whether Iran should be included (since the other non-Arab countries had relatively small populations), the think to consider here is that Iran took many of the Iraqi Jews, who then left Iran post revolution - i.e. the story of what happened to "middle east and north african jews" or "jews in all the countries that were at one point at war with israel" is useful as an overall narrative.
 * However, this article does need to be simplified / streamlined significantly, so more sub articles would help a lot. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Structure and other points
Hi Greyshark, per the discussion above, culminating in this edit, here are my comments on the various points within your edit:
 * 1) Readded "Background" section: The content of this section is extremely poor. Much of it fails WP:SYNTH and is unsourced. The parts that are salvageable fit much better into their respective geographic sections in the article. Frankly a "background" for a topic as diverse as the one covered by this article is very difficult to do. The background in the Maghreb is very different to the background in Yemen or Iraq (which are very different from each other). If you believe strongly in the need for this section, please can you propose how we might improve it to make it workable?
 * 2) Deleted paragraphs: In the edit you deleted a number of paragraphs without explanation. Please could you explain the reason for deletion of each?
 * 3) Aftermath section: I don't understand this. I get from your comment above re the banned user that you think that the later history in Turkey and Iran should be separated. But I don't understand why. The definition of this article does not have a time period end as far as I can see - the article discusses the exodus post 1948. If you would like to define the end-date, please could you explain and propose what the cut off date should be and how we make that clear in the lead?
 * 4) Immigration: Why did you remove the link to Israeli_Jews? The sentences are otherwise unsourced. Also your sentence on the United States needs a source and ideally an estimate number.
 * 5) Subsections by region: Are you against this per se or do you just want me to explain my thinking? If the latter it is simply because the human mind finds it very difficult to digest disparate information about 14 different countries. I came to this article cold a few weeks ago and realized it was impossible to understand. We need to find ways to simplify it for a reader - in ways that the background section has completely failed to do per above. Splitting it into 7 regions is much easier to understand and also it makes is easier for us to write generalized paragraphs like "background" for each area.
 * 6) Further reading: Irrespective on your views on the above, why remove the section headings in here? Surely it is helpful?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Greyshark, I just reverted your amendments since it has been more than a week now. Feel free to revert back once you're back and ready to discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To your points:
 * 1. You sound to be engaged in WP:SYNTH, no sources "separate" the arena to "Maghreb", "al-Sham", "Iraq" etc. Those are not Chalifates. Consistency should be kept with Jewish virtual library-like structure.
 * 2. you may reinsert paragraphs; since your edit was gigantic and comprehensive please understand that partial revert cannot be perfect.
 * 3. The main exodus wave ended in 1972, this is cited by many sources as reference date (see ). After that it is aftermath and occurred from very different reasons (Lebanese civil war, Iranian revolution and Islamiziation in Turkey).
 * 4. no comment, i don't know what you are talking of - please explain.
 * 5. This is generally speaking about main 7-8 countries, while we can make "other Arab countries" and "Muslim countries" sections to make it easier, as do historians put it. Again - classification to former Chalifate regions (Maghreb, al-Sham, etc.) is very strange.
 * 6. Same as above, no need for WP:SYNTH subsections. We may however tweak the inflated sections.
 * Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Greyshark, we've worked together long enough to not need to throw around "synth" accusations. And the Caliphate and Al-Sham references in your comments was also quite odd and unconnected to any edits or comments I have seen. Anyway, happy new year to you.
 * To take your points in turn:
 * 1. Your comment appears to be answering my point 5 (I respond to it below). Can you comment on my point 1 re "background"? The current drafting is very poor.
 * 2. OK - I have done this.
 * 3. Perhaps, but even between 48-72 the reasons were quite varied (end of colonialism and Arab nationalism in the Maghreb, Suez war with Egypt, revolution in Iraq, Magic Carpet in Yemen etc). If you want to split it I don't object in principal, but you should either change the title of the article or explain clearly in the lead paragraph why we analyse the exodus in two phases. To be consistent this will also require amendments to the Arab-country explanation, separating 48-72 and 72-today. Are you willing to do this work?
 * 4. I'm referring to something you removed in your edit. I will add it back.
 * 5+6:
 * On structure, all we are really debating is whether the Maghreb region should be grouped together. Maghrebi Jews are a distinct historical grouping, and there are many similarities in the story of the Maghreb exodus, not least that they were mostly French colonies. On grouping Syria and Lebanon, I don't care but surely this is neater and again the Jewish community in those two countries are a distinct historical group.
 * The Jewish Virtual Library is run by the right-wing-Zionist American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. They do not qualify as RS or NPOV, so we will not be following them.
 * How we group the countries is an editorial decision, which we have the scope to make under WP:EDITDISC. Accusations of synth here are beneath an editor of your experience. Do you have a particular concern with the structure you can explain? Do you have any other ideas how we can simplify this for the reader?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Greyshark, I have again reverted your reverts after waiting a few days. Happy for you to revert back on your return. It's just it impedes progress otherwise given the long delays Oncenawhile (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a consensus against your edit.GreyShark (dibra) 11:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a joke, given Plotspoiler's edit summary suggested s/he had read none of the page history or talk history here. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is extremely impolite Once; please mind WP:CIVIL.GreyShark (dibra) 15:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Once, let's summarize - i think back ground is essential and since there is a common agreement (sourced) that the main exodus occurred 1948-1972, there is a background and aftermath. you can argue whether it was 1947 or 1948 and whether it was 1972 or 1976, but it is certain the process of exodus is long over and that later events in Iran and Turkey are little related. During the exodus there were varied reasons for exodus in "Maghreb" countries. The grouping of Maghrebi Jews together in modern times is your idea, not shown in sources. Jewish Virtual Library table is given as example and not as source; except that you are not new to know that the threshold for reliability is not political affiliation (POV/NPOV) of the source but only the scholarly level and existence of editorial board. Don't be offended of Synth "accusation", i'm not filing any reports on you here, just pointing out that your opinion is not relying on sourced info. Grouping less relevant Arab countries (Bahrain, Sudan etc.) into "Other Arab countries" subsection - i guess is the best solution for this.GreyShark (dibra) 11:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Greyshark:
 * Background. I agree that it covering background is essential, but what we have now does not work, as much of it is OR when generalizing and too specific when not. If you read the section carefully it really is appalling work - I assume you have been too busy to read it carefully, but please do, as I am sure you will agree with me. Since you reverted my edits in one mass edit without actually commenting, perhaps you could comment on each of my detailed edits and edit comments on the background in turn.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Time period. The way this article is presented now is inconsistent. We can't have some countries talking about 48-72 and other countries in "aftermath", unless we explain properly what we are doing. And even then we need to ensure that we don't cross lines into OR and SYNTH. As I said I don't object in principal, but if you care about this you should either change the title of the article or explain clearly in the lead paragraph why we analyse the exodus in two phases. To be consistent this will also require amendments to the Arab-country explanation, separating 48-72 and 72-today. Are you willing to do this work? If not, the current state of affairs will have to be made consistent with the rest of the article by removing the "aftermath" grouping.
 * Grouping of countries If I bring sources on this topic which group the Maghreb region will you be satisfied?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Maghreb should not be grouped together. The story of my family from Morocco is completly different from the story of someone from Algeria, and both of our stories are completly different from the story of someone from Libya which wasn't even under French rule.
 * There are a number of shared causes for the exodus from the Middle East and North Africa and apart from them each country is a distinct case. The existing formula of a general background section on all of the region and then a section for each country is the correct one. Ben tetuan (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I will bow to consensus on the country grouping point. I do think it is very unwieldy though having so many countries, and without grouping at all makes generalising very difficult.

Out of interest, Ben, I'll mention a few points in response to your post: There is a significant connection between the exodus from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Fezzan-Ghadames (French Administration) (the portion of Libya under French control), and that is Algeria which they all border. Since French Algeria was part of Metropolitan France, all that those in Morocco, Tunisia and the Fezzan had to do to leave was to cross that land border into "France". And, according to the sources, that is how a great deal of Moroccans, Tunisians and Libyans left.

On the background section, I'm awaiting Greyshark's views, but I'd be very grateful for your thoughts too (ie on each of my edits linked above).

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understood your point. Why is it significante that some Jews left Morocco\Tunisia\Libya through Algeria and in what way is that different from leaving through other routs? While these countries were still under colonial rule Jews were mostly allowed to leave them if they wish. Only in the years 1956-1961 there were clear restrictions on Jews leaving Morocco, so Moroccan Jews were smuggled from Moroccan ports to Europe and from there to Israel, not through Algeria.
 * If you meant that they could have settled in Algeria - no they couldn't. France took measures to assure that Moroccan Jews who enter Algeria won't get citizenship much before the period we are talking about, to stop this phenomenon. Tunisian Jews had no need to settle Algeria, it was easy for them to get French citizenship if they wished so anyway. Ben tetuan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Because around half of Maghrebi Jews emigrated to France, often via Algeria (which then, was technically also "France"). Even if you remove the Algeria point (which I find interesting but your points are fair), the French emigration connection is a clear common theme. That is not the case for any of the other countries we cover in this article.
 * Another point which occurred to me is that the Maghreb countries never went to war against Israel. Again, this is not the case for any of the other countries we cover in this article.
 * To my mind we can easily discuss general themes across the modern Jewish history of the Maghreb countries in a way that doesn't apply to the rest of the Arab or Muslim world.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems noone is willing to defend the background section, but both Greyshark and Ben think there should be one. I have removed the OR paragraphs (per discussion above), and sectioned it so it is clear which regions are being covered (and which are not...). There is also the issue that it is focused solely on pre-1948 anti-semitism, which of course is POV weighting - the background should be much much broader. The obvious point is that the exodus would never have happened without Zionism and the Arab-Israeli War - these need as much weighting. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion
Note: this section was originally located at User talk:Greyshark09 @Greyshark09 - You can't keep behaving like this. If we have to wait for your blessing - between 1 to 6 weeks each time - before making edits, we will never improve the article.

If you don't have time to get involved in the article properly, that is your problem not mine. It is simply not acceptable to revert without making specific comments on everything you have reverted. You have reverted a number of times, adding back in unsourced or poorly sourced material and reverting constructive improvements. Not because you disagree but because you don't have time to think about it.

I have been very patient, waiting a long time for your feedback each time. I don't do this for many people but I respect you.

But there is a limit and you have crossed it. I have lost patience with your behaviour. If you don't have time to get involved, leave it to someone who does. Or better yet, just wait until you do have time and work on the article properly.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So you understand what I am referring to, here are the talk threads you simply left hanging:
 * Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries (waiting for your response since 8 Dec)
 * Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries (waiting for your response since 8 Dec)
 * Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries (waiting for your response since 8 Jan)
 * Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries (waiting for your response since 12 Jan)
 * These are long wait times. This is patience from my end. I cannot wait forever and you cannot "blindly" revert each time on your return.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, FYI here. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, unrelated? You're threatening to get two editors sanctioned that disagree with you on the same page, or at least want more time to review. Seems very related. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Plotspolier, your disruptive behaviour warrants sanctions (if it continues). Greyshark's does not.
 * The difference is that your (Plotspoiler's) behaviour is purely disruptive as you apparently have no intention of reading what you revert or participating on talk.
 * On the other hand, Greyshark is a constructive editor who is heavily involved in the article, has spent a lot of time editing and discussing the article, but appears to be very busy right now, and in my opinion is dealing with this lack of time in a way that impedes progress for everyone. Greyshark and I can discuss this and work it out between the two of us following normal procedures.
 * I would like to believe that you (Plotspoiler) and I can also work this out through discussion, but you have so far shown no intention to discuss.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be actively entering the talk page in short order, and I have been following the discussion, thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark, I am still waiting for a response, which will hopefully include some kind of apology. You reverted my edits and still have not reviewed it to consider which are fine and which need discussion.

The expected norm on wikipedia is that if one makes a series of edits, each with their own edit comment, these will be considered carefully and separately by other editors. Just like I have done with the four edits you just made - my responses were specific to each edit, and left the ones I have no issue with untouched.

Please explain how you intend to behave going forward, and in particular whether you will be going back over the edits you reverted and carefully responding to them in turn (and self-reverting those you have no comments on).

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see from your contribution history that you have had time to work on wiki in the last few days, but apparently not enough time to deal with this issue. This gives the impression that you are unwilling to behave in a civil manner by engaging in discussion here or at the article concerned. I am very disappointed since over the years we had built a good understanding and were able to work well together. Perhaps someone else is using your account?
 * Anyway, having considered it carefully I intend to move a little more slowly through the dispute resolution process than jumping into an AE against Plotspoiler. If this continues I will open up a request for help at WP:DRN, as I need advice if I am to continue to deal with your poor behaviour in a constructive fashion.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you decided to move the discussion from the article's talk page to my personal page, with no clear reason. For your reference, i rarely engage in specific discussions on my personal talk page, especially concerning issues i'm already involved in. Please don't move discussions to my personal page in the future.GreyShark (dibra) 15:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

not related to here, but please notice that i nominated template:Palestinian territory development for deletion. Though you are not the creator and didn't participate in the previous merger discussion, i think you have contributed it a lot recently. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 17:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Expelled?
Malik, can you please provide a source for the claim that Jews were "expelled" from Arab countries in this exodus? I found the word "expelled" in the text only twice, and neither referred to such expulsions. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, right after you explain why you removed the word "fled" with an inaccurate edit summary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you can reinclude that if you like. My objection was to the word "expelled", but in removing it it occurred to me that "left or fled" was somewhat redundant. BTW, please explain why you also reverted "Evacuations" in the British Mandate header. The text in that section does not refer to expulsions but to evacuations. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When the British Army "orders [somebody] to evacuate", that's an expulsion, not a polite invitation to leave. As far as the use of "expelled" in the lede, when the government seizes somebody's assets and threatens to take them to the border, that's also an expulsion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands". The problem with the word "expulsion" here is that it conflates seizure of property with expulsion from a country. At the very least this is very sloppy prose that needs to be clarified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in regards to the British Mandate section, I think it's clear that the word "evacuation" is far more accurate. I doubt you will find a reliable source that employs the word "expulsion" in this context. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article describes the situation in Iraq, in particular, as an expulsion:
 * On October 12, 1950, Nuri as-said summoned a senior official of the company and made similar threats again, equating the expulsion of Jews with the expulsion of Palestinians.
 * In 1951 the Iraqi Government passed legislation that made affiliation with Zionism a felony and ordered, "the expulsion of Jews who refused to sign a statement of anti-Zionism."[35]
 * I think the use of the word "expel" in the lede is adequately supported by what's in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored "Evactuations". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for that. I still think the word "expelled" in the way it is used in the intro to be misleading. I think a more precise explanation is necessary; however, given the points you raise above, I will obviously have to do a little homework before returning to this debate. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a look at those two examples. In the first, Nuri was only making threats - there is no evidence presented in the article that these threats were actually carried out. Likewise in regards to the order - we don't know that any Jews were actually expelled as a result of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "As a result of militant Arab nationalism, Jews were expelled from Libya in 1951 and from Egypt in 1956..." Medding, Peter. Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 51. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not exactly an informative quote. IIRC, a small number of Jews were expelled from Egypt as foreign nationals. I don't know what he's referring to in Libya, I would have to do some research on that. But my basic objection to the phrase "fled or expelled" is that it implies a moral equivalence between the Jewish exodus and what happened to Palestinians in the '48 war. Since as I understand it, only a small number of Jews were expelled, it's misleading to employ such a blanket phrase in the intro. At the very least, some additional explanation would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And you seem intent on making it seem like the Jews of the Middle East packed their bags one day and "left" for Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, look, I think I should apologize for that initial edit, which I admit was clumsy and ill-considered. In my defence, I was irritated by the fact that you added what I considered to be contentious material under the misleading edit summary "copy-editing". However, that is no excuse for carelessness on my part. I concede that my edit might readily have been interpreted as an attempted "whitewash" as you put it, but I hope you will accept my assurance that I had no such intention, I was simply too hasty in trying to rectify what I saw as a misleading claim. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "left, fled, or were expelled" covers all the options and is supported by the body of the article. I'm not so sure about the "evacuation" bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "left, fled or were expelled" is so far best and shortest description.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Short" is not a virtue where it leads to misconceptions. There needs to be sufficient explanation to provide an accurate summary of events. Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What misconceptions? Jews left, fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries. This is a fact which is supported by the body of the article, as well as the source Jayjg supplied above. That in your mind it implies some sort of equivalence with another event and you disagree with that is not really relevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, it's still a misleading summary when IIRC at best only a tiny proportion of Jews suffered any kind of expulsion. "Expulsion" itself is a somewhat vague term that can apply to a number of different actions.


 * In any case, I'm not really in a position to pursue this further right now since I don't have the appropriate documentation to hand, apart from the fact that I have other priorities. I'll try to return to this discussion when I can find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically... No one posted a link to an authority actually expelling people. I move for the removal of "and expulsion"
 * The Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries or Jewish exodus from Arab countries (Arabic: هجرة اليهود من الدول العربية والإسلامية‎ hijrat al-yahūd min ad-duwal al-ʻArabīyah wal-Islāmīyah) was the departure, flight,[1] migration and expulsion of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Muslim countries, mainly from 1948 until the early 1970s.

Second? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigDeep4Truth (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs, as a general guideline propose, though it is not an absolute rule. This Intro is so confusing and it is really long. So, any suggestions ?