Talk:Judaeo-Portuguese

Ethnonym for Judæo-Portuguese speakers
Was there an ethnic name for Judeo-Portuguese speaking Jews?


 * Again, the obsession with ethnonyms. Judæo-Portuguese speakers are almost exclusively Sephardim, as you will learn once this stub is fleshed out.  Tomer TALK  20:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense that they would be Sephardim, since Portugal is right next to Spain.

I'm signing as Gringo300.

On another talk page, you made a comment about tracking me down.

I find THAT far more disturbing that an alleged "obsession with classications".


 * Heh. :-)  OK, Perhaps I've been misunderstood.  It's not tracking YOU down that're relevant, it's keeping track of your contributions.  Knowing what other contributions you've made helps a lot in understanding where you're coming from when trying to understand the gist of other contributions, such as, in this case, your contribution on Jewish languages pages.  Believe me, it's nothing personal.  Although, now that you mention it, hmmm... I'm kidding of course...  You've made a point now of signing two of your posts on talk pages as gringo300, however to my knowledge, to date, no such user yet exists.  i.e., User:Gringo300.  If this is the ident you want to adopt for yourself, go to the upper right-hand corner of the screen and click on Log In/Register, and sign up for a valid Wikipedia user/editor account...as Gringo300 if that's your desire, or Wickymonger300 or whatever suits your fancy.  The word, anyways, is "sense", not "since", and yes, it does make sense that they would be sefardim, not half so much because portugal is "right next to spain", but because 1/3 of the Jewish population of Spain (an estimated over 100,000 individuals) moved from Spain to Portugal in 1492, and in 1497, when the Inquisition, in collusion with the Portuguese Crown mandated the conversion of the Jews, it was upon pain of death...no expatriation "out" was offered.  Many Jews (it is estimated that well over half the community) was driven "underground", but they had no ability to emigrate en masse for nearly 200 years thereafter, leading to the development of many distinct but cohesive crypto-Jewish communities in Portugal, and others in Portugal's overseas territories, notably in northern Brasil.  That notwithstanding, numerous crypto-Jewish communities remain in modern Portugal, where a number of them have very recently gone about doing what they can to reclaim their Jewish identity.  Tomer TALK  12:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh... never mind.

Anyway, I'm about to try to join.

Testing, testing, testing...

Success! Check the history page.

Users of Judæo-Portuguese
The box on the right of the page says there are some 2,000 users of the language, but no source is given. For what I am aware of the language is not used by any Sephardic Jew in the Netherlands; just like the Askenazi community in the Netherlands the Sephardic community in the Netherlands has totally switched to Dutch in the last two centuries. So where do these 2,000 users come from? Rick86 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

no evidence?
NEW MATTER

There is no evidence here for a separate Jewish-Portuguese language. In the lists of words provided here we may discount loanwords from Hebrew, which do not constitute evidence for a separate language. In the list of different forms of Portuguese words, all forms except angora are simply the normal medieval forms of Galician-Portuguese. If you cannot provide compelling linguistic evidence, you should cut this entry or change its name or its tenor. philologist58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.25.120 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

__ This is exactly right. If there was a medieval form of Portuguese that was particular to Jewish speaking inhabitants of the country, there is absolutely zero evidence for that presented in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.175.246 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This article cites NO bibliography to support its assertion - and for a good reason: there is none. So to say (as the robotic minded corrector tells me in deleting my objections) that an objection to the existence of this article cites no bibliography is absurd. (Why would there be any bibliography denying something that no scholar would say?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.175.246 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Formal challenge
In this edit, I've reduced this article to a one-sentence stub, per WP:Verifiability policy, and am issuing this formal challenge: anything added to this article must be accompanied with a citation to a reliable source. The policy states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Any material added or restored to this article that fails to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability, will be removed immediately. Here are some suggestions for where you might find reliable sources for this topic:

If, as some editors here believe, there is no evidence available because there is no such thing, then I would encourage them to start deletion procedures to remove this article. See WP:AFD and WP:AFDHOW for how to proceed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)