Talk:1941 anti-Jewish riots in Gabès

Source review

Bostom, Andrew (June 5, 2008). The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Prometheus Books. p. 154.

===> Bostom is not WP:RS. See discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Bostom_and_Prometheus_books and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Is_the_The_Legacy_of_Jihad_an_unreliable_source?

Benattia, Abraham. "Le pogrom de Gabès, 1941". Harissa. Harissa Inc. Retrieved 13 July 2017.

===> A blog

Lyn, Julius. "A betrayal by friends: Tunisia's forgotten 1941 pogrom". The Jerusalem Post. Jpost Inc.

===> This is a blog written by the head of an advocacy organization [1]

Satloff, Robert (October 9, 2007). Among the Righteous. PublicAffairs. p. 85.

===> Not WP:RS for history; the author is not a historian and has been the leader of the advocacy group "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" for almost 25 years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

So, an event that started (according to the article itself) with 'an Arab man harassed some Jewish girls' is described as being motivated by 'Retaliation for an attack on an Arab by a group of Jews"? Is this some kind of joke? Tagging the article for a ridiculous NPOV violation, but will get around to rewriting it, from scratch if needed, soon. Red Slapper (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. إيان (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then add “after an Arab man harassed some Jewish girls” or similar. The intention is to clarify that this was not just a random event. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to go into such elaborate details in the infobox - that is in the article. But the event, as the article title tells us, was anti-Jewish = antisemitism. No one is suggesting that any of the people that were attacked in this pogrom had anything to do with the attack on the Arab man- they were attacked because they were Jewish. Red Slapper (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. إيان (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your WP:POV / WP:OR. The historian Haim Saadoun does not use the terms pogrom or antisemitism in his description of the riot. إيان (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~And others do: [2],[3],[4],[5]. There's no reason to adopt Saadoun;s terminology or lack thereof. Red Slapper (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. إيان (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly just WP:Cherrypicked sources that suit your POV. The only work of a historian there is a course syllabus of a random professor, not a peer-reviewed publication.

There is reason for the prominence given to Saadoun: he is an authority on the history of Jews in Tunisia and is published in Brill's Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World—the authoritative reference source on the matter. إيان (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow , where to start. You select ONE source that doesn't use the term , I provide 4 sources who DO use the term, and I'm cherry picking? Pull the other one, please. Second, as we all know, or should know, Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence- the fact that Saadoun doesn't use the term is not evidence that he thinks it is not anti semitic. We have multiple sources, some by active academics who call it an anti-semitic pogrom - yet we have editors who what the article to describe the motivation of this pogrom as "Retaliation for killing of an Arab by a group of Jews". It is to laugh. Red Slapper (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. إيان (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saadoun is an authoritative source, absolutely. However, he is not the only authoritative reference. PLease refrain from WP:CHERRYPICKING. Longhornsg (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg and Red Slapper, the issue is giving WP:undue weight to non-scholarly sources that are not peer-reviwed or are otherwise questionable sources, and not properly contextualizing and attributing the claims.

Longhornsg, please explain how this edit improves how the article covers the topic. إيان (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@إيان:, the response is not to revert to your last version. The goal of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates well-sourced, accurately presented content that provides a full picture of the subject. My edits do that. No reasonable editor would consider them WP:UNDUE. If you believe they should be attributed better, feel free to do so, and engage, as you have not done previously. However, note that not only peer-reviewed academic articles (that happen to agree with your POV) are WP:RS. Reliable facts are facts. Longhornsg (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg, I have engaged. See above. I just refuse to waste my time with redundant WP:ICANTHEARYOU nonsense.

The attitude that facts are facts is remiss here. The news site J Post is not comparable to the academic Brill Publishers in terms of quality, a primary source such as a news article is not as reliable as a tertiary source academic encyclopedia, course syllabi are not comparable to peer-reviewed publications, and the work of 'scholars' associated with a government institution such as Yad Vashem are not as reliable those of an independent scholar renowned as a specialist in the topic such as Haim Saadoun. The sources are not of equal prominence and stature and each is given its own wp:due weight accordingly.

We include what people like Robert Satloff and Irit Abramski say, but with attribution and without privileging their simplistic reductions in the introduction and infobox of this article. إيان (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is your POV attempt to describe an event that started (according to the article itself) with 'an Arab man harassed some Jewish girls' as being motivated by 'Retaliation for an attack on an Arab by a group of Jews". It is almost comical. Start an RfC if you'd like, but stop your edit war to get that back in the article.

Your attempt to discredit the scholarly work of Yad Vashem historians - an award winning institution for research of the Holocaust and antisemitism is disgusting - but I am glad you let that one out, as it will let future RfC commentators understand who we are dealing with. Red Slapper (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. إيان (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put "Retaliation for an attack on an Arab by a group of Jews" in the infobox; Onceinawhile put it there as an attempt at compromise with your desire to inject your POV that the motive was simply antisemitism, as if the riot were a random act of antisemitism that erupted all of a sudden one day with no context or lead-up. I just corrected that the source said the man was "attacked" and not necessarily "killed". I don't think there is a need to have a simplistic motive in the infobox at all. It was covered with more detail in the article text.

I am glad you let that one out, as it will let future RfC commentators understand who we are dealing with. This is baseless ad-hominem. You may strike it out and apologize. إيان (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World is not peer-reviewed. Longhornsg (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the article and sourcing

@إيان:, you are the only one WP:ICANTHEARYOU, expressing WP:OWNERSHIP over the page and refusing to accept sources that contradict your narrative.

By goal here is to improve the article with facts, reliable sources, and remove POV. NPOV by omission is still WP:NOPV.

Here are the historical facts I can gather about this incident based on a panoply of RS and scholarly consensus. If there are additional sources that would add color to our understanding, I'm all ears. While Sa'adoun is undoubtedly an expert in this area, the encyclopedia cites third-hand Italian reports (it was a French Vichy colony, so the Italians wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of events there), so that report is far less reliable. Sure, it can be cited, but its reliability in this instance is dubious and should be noted as such. In addition, the Italian reports are contradicted by the body of other scholars, who pull from primary and secondary sources. Therefore, it is Saadoun who is WP:UNDUE, given that the facts he presents are not the overwhelming consensus view of scholars.

Relations between the Arab and Jewish populations in Tunisia, while generally good, deteriorated after the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and tensions between the communities were exacerbated by the policies and actions of Vichy France.
The anti-Jewish violence, or pogrom, in Gabes killed 8 Jews
The riot began when a group of Arabs attacked a synagogue in the Jewish quarter. Only Saadoun mentions that this spate of violence followed the attack by four Jews, who retaliated against an Arab man who reportedly harassed Jewish girls. This to me points to latent tension already in the area.

Below are sources from extremely reliable historians and academics with expertise directly in this subject area. While Sa'adoun is undoubtedly an expert in this area, the encyclopedia cites third-hand Italian reports (it was a French Vichy colony, so the Italians wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of events there), so that report is far less reliable. Sure, it can be cited, but its reliability in this instance is dubious and should be noted as such. In the name of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV:

Christian Gerlach, in The Extermination of the European Jews (pg. 343):

"At a riot in Gabes, Tunisia, in May 1941, at least seven Jews were killed"

Georges Bensoussan, in Jews in Arab Countries: The Great Uprooting (pg. 337):

"In a number of Arab countries, the expulsion of Jews seems to have been planned in the event of an Axis victory. In May 1941 at Gabes, in Tunisia, tensions exploded into a riot. Already by the preceding August, four Tunisian towns had been the theater of anti-Jewish violence, with shops and houses sacked. This time, however, events are worse: from May 19 to 22, hundreds of demonstrators assaulted the Jewish quarter, killing eight and wounding twenty. After the pogrom, anti-Jewish feelings remained high, as noted alter by the chief French civil administrator, evoking "the violent anti-Jewish feelings of the Gabes Muslim population, which remain latent even after the 1941 riot."

Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora in A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations: From the Origins to the Present Day (pg.367):

"...Often rumors, purposely spread, began the disturbances, such as one involving "a rape committed by a Jew" or simply a "relationship between a young Jewish man and a young Jewish woman." The very idea was enough to increase tensions and trigger attacks against Jews. Thus the rumors in Kef spread to Oued Meliz, Souk El Arbaa, Tala, and Silian. There were attacks on Jewish neighborhoods, and Jewish stores were ransacked. Sometimes lives were lost, as in Gabes on May 18, 1941. The breakdown in relations between the two communities can be explained largely by the context of war and the unleashing of Nazi ideology."

Martin Gilbert, in In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (pg.179-180):

"Jewish communities became a target of violence from the outset of Vichy rule. In Tunisia, local Arabs frequently attacked Jews. In August 1940, riots and looting were reported from four Tunisian towns: Keff, Ebba-Ksour, Moktar, and Siliana. To deflect Arab discontent away from France, the Vichy Foreign Minister, Paul Baudoin, ordered the French Resident-General in Tunisia, Admiral Esteva, to find "quiet ways to indulge Arab sensitivities." Arabs who had been convicted of pillage and theft during the anti-Jewish riots were released from prison. As a result, the riots resumed. Jews were attacked in Degache in November 1940 and in Gafsa a few months later.

In May 1941, three days of anti-Jewish violence broke out in the Tunisian city of Gabes. It began when thirty Muslims attacked a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter, killing eight Jews and injuring twenty. Local Arab police made no effort to intervene when the violence continued."

National Perspectives on the Global Second World War, published by Routledge ([6])

Moncef and Esteva also clashed over the Vichy authorities' treatment of the Beylik's Jewish minority. At the outbreak of the war, there were around 90,000 Jews living in Tunisia out of a total population of just under three million. As in neighboring Algeria, the French authorities granted them greater political rights and privileges than the Muslims. This discrepancy was exploited by German and Italian propagandists throughout the 1930s who relayed the radio broadcasts of the pro-Axis Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hadj Amine Al Huessini, into the country. Relations between the two communities deteriorated sharply following the Palestinian revolt of 1936.

Esteva used these social tensions to justify his introduction of the Vichy Statut des Juifs laws in November 1940, June 1941, and March 1942. He claimed that these laws helped assuage Muslim anger and assured Jewish leaders that he would enforce them with "more liberality than in France. Whatever his purported intentions, serious anti-Jewish riots broke out in Kef in August 1940, and in Gabes and Gafsa in May 1941 around the times that these laws were being enacted. "Well aware that the Vichy authorities actions had helped trigger these clashes, Moncef expressed his concern for the "welfare of his Jewish subjects."

Longhornsg (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]