Wikipedia:Peer review/Edict of Expulsion/archive2

Edict of Expulsion

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I ant to take the article from GA through the Featured Article Candidate (FAC) process. I would like to get the page up to FA status if possible before the anniversary of the 750th anniversary of the expulsions from Eleanor of Castile's dower towns, in January 1275, so that the related major topics are covered.

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "the first time a European state permanently banned their presence". This appears well referenced, but it may not be true. Jews first came to England when invited by William the Conqueror, which may mean that there was an unrecorded bar in Anglo-Saxon England.
• "While there are no recorded incidents". "incidents" is vague. Maybe "attacks on Jews".
• "During the reigns of Henry III of England". "of England" is superfluous.
• "Jews were direct subjects of the king". What does "direct subjects" mean? It implies that other people were indirect subjects, which is meaningless.
• "Loans however were vital, as capital was in short supply and necessary for economic development." Is there evidence that Jews gave loans for economic development? My impression is that the borrowers were the aristocracy and gentry financing their lifestyle.
• "at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215[7] and the Synod of Oxford in 1222." It would be helpful to clarify that the Lateran Council was in Rome and did not apply only to England.
• "Wider discontent was in part fuelled by the largest English landholders using Jewish loan defaults to purchase the land of smaller indebted gentry, a process that was exacerbated by the heavy taxation placed by the Crown on the Jewry, particularly from 1240 onwards. Debt bonds were sold to a small circle of courtiers at cut down prices, as the Crown controlled the sale of Jewish debts.[9] Leaders like Simon de Montfort then used anger at the dispossession of middle ranking landowners to fuel antisemitic violence, at London (where 500 Jews died), Worcester, Canterbury, and many other towns.[10] In the 1270s and 80s, Queen Eleanor amassed vast lands and properties through this process, causing widespread resentment and conflict with the church.". I do not understand this. How could landowners use defaults by gentry to purchase land? How did this relate to heavy taxation? What were debt bonds and who was selling them to courtiers? Why should the Queen's acquisitions have caused conflict with the church?
• "Economically, Jews had played an important role in the country,[12] but by 1275 this had been severely restricted as the result of punitive taxation, which had eroded the community's wealth." Your paragraphs are sometimes very short and it might be better to merge some of them.
• "This right was granted for following 15 years, supposedly giving Jews a period to readjust." This is unclear. If lending at interest was immediately forbidden and leasing land was only allowed for fifteen years, how was this giving time to adjust? Also "for following" should be "for the following"
• "it is telling that Edward did not impose any further taxation" This seems POV and should be attributed to the author inline.
• Huscroft's comments seem over-speculative. I would delete unless they are supported by other historians.
• "These were also the group most hostile to Jews and the abuse of Jewish debts." "abuse of Jewish debts" is pejorative. Maybe " and they demanded the cancellation of debts to Jewish moneylenders", if this is supported by the sources.
• "This was in any case not the only incident." "in any case" is verbiage and should be deleted.
• "Roth speculates" This is the first mention of him so you should explain him and give his full name.
• 'The Jewish refugees' section. More short paragraphs.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, three points here may take a bit of work!

  • "the first time a European state permanently banned their presence". This appears well referenced, but it may not be true. Jews first came to England when invited by William the Conqueror, which may mean that there was an unrecorded bar in Anglo-Saxon England.
    • I'm not sure how to deal with this. Your point I believe has been mentioned somewhere as a possibility, but even if true, it is unremembered, whereas for contemporaries, they believed and understood the 1290 Expulsion as the first permanent ban, whether that was the case or not. There was lots of other smaller, known expulsions. Resolved, changed to "known to have"
  • "Wider discontent was in part fuelled by the largest English landholders using Jewish loan defaults to purchase the land of smaller indebted gentry, a process that was exacerbated by the heavy taxation placed by the Crown on the Jewry, particularly from 1240 onwards. Debt bonds were sold to a small circle of courtiers at cut down prices, as the Crown controlled the sale of Jewish debts.[9] Leaders like Simon de Montfort then used anger at the dispossession of middle ranking landowners to fuel antisemitic violence, at London (where 500 Jews died), Worcester, Canterbury, and many other towns.[10] In the 1270s and 80s, Queen Eleanor amassed vast lands and properties through this process, causing widespread resentment and conflict with the church.". I do not understand this. How could landowners use defaults by gentry to purchase land? How did this relate to heavy taxation? What were debt bonds and who was selling them to courtiers? Why should the Queen's acquisitions have caused conflict with the church?
    • John, Henry or Edward would overtax the Jews. This would force the Jews to sell their (creditor's land against loans extended) bonds cheap, to pay their taxes. Courtiers or later Eleanor of Castile would then acquired the land bonds from Jews, they would force defaults from landowners, and acquire the land for peanuts. I know this is complicated, I will edit. It's a scam, in essence, operated by the royal household. Please check rewrite
  • "These were also the group most hostile to Jews and the abuse of Jewish debts." "abuse of Jewish debts" is pejorative. Maybe " and they demanded the cancellation of debts to Jewish moneylenders", if this is supported by the sources.
    • Amended to "hostile to Jews and usury". That's accurate at least.

• These I will correct and edit this comment as I correct them:

  Todo:

  Done:

  • Huscroft's comments seem over-speculative. I would delete unless they are supported by other historians.
    • So the fact of the money being given away is established fact. I'll double check the given rationales. Tolan and Morris seem to follow Huscroft quite closely regarding the Gascony expulsion and learning from Charles of Salerno, so probably OK to keep. Kept with additional refs
  • "it is telling that Edward did not impose any further taxation" This seems POV and should be attributed to the author inline.
    • Done
  • "While there are no recorded incidents". "incidents" is vague. Maybe "attacks on Jews".
    • Will correct Edited
  • "During the reigns of Henry III of England". "of England" is superfluous.
    • Will correct Edited
  • "Jews were direct subjects of the king". What does "direct subjects" mean? It implies that other people were indirect subjects, which is meaningless.
    • I suppose "property" is the other term. There was no intermediate Lord, town council, etc. Edited
  • "Loans however were vital, as capital was in short supply and necessary for economic development." Is there evidence that Jews gave loans for economic development? My impression is that the borrowers were the aristocracy and gentry financing their lifestyle.
    • I believe so, eg, financing castle building and monastic expansion particularly. But your scenario is also the case.
  • "at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215[7] and the Synod of Oxford in 1222." It would be helpful to clarify that the Lateran Council was in Rome and did not apply only to England.
    • Will correct; Edited
  • "Economically, Jews had played an important role in the country,[12] but by 1275 this had been severely restricted as the result of punitive taxation, which had eroded the community's wealth." Your paragraphs are sometimes very short and it might be better to merge some of them.
    • OK; Edited
  • "This right was granted for following 15 years, supposedly giving Jews a period to readjust." This is unclear. If lending at interest was immediately forbidden and leasing land was only allowed for fifteen years, how was this giving time to adjust? Also "for following" should be "for the following"
    • The theory was that they could adjust, but nobody think this was realistic. Will edit. The next line does explain that this wasn't realistic. Edited
  • "This was in any case not the only incident." "in any case" is verbiage and should be deleted.
    • Will edit Edited
  • "Roth speculates" This is the first mention of him so you should explain him and give his full name.
    • Will edit Edited
  • 'The Jewish refugees' section. More short paragraphs.
    • Will edit Edited

  Jim Killock (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• "For the Crown, there was an immediate windfall in terms of Jewish property to be sold." This is awkward and wordy. Maybe "The Crown seized the Jewish property."
• You do not need to repeat the footnote about archae each time the term is used. Also, for clarity I suggest "Archae had been seized and destroyed during pogroms"
• "They place the expulsion". It is grammatically unclear what "They" refers to.
• "English antisemitism persisted into the twentieth century," This is a valid point, but I think it needs to be set in context. Britain (not just England) was safe for Jews compared with the pre-WWII massacres on the Continent and the continuing anti-semitism in the Moslem world.
• There are a number of problems with the citations. 1. 36 and 37 are blank. 2. There are four cite error messages at the end. 3. I would avoid "passim". Specific page numbers should be provided. 4. You need the Morris page numbers.
• Note. If you are not seeing cite errors, you need to install the correct script. I cannot remember what it is, so you will need to get advice on this.
• You have further reading as a sub-heading of 'References', but this is incorrect.
• I think 'References' is better headed 'Sources' or 'Bibliography'.
• There are several error messages in the bibliography.
• It does not make sense to distinguish between 'Medieval Anglo-Jewish history' and web sources. I suggest deleting the sub-headings and merging. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  • "For the Crown, there was an immediate windfall in terms of Jewish property to be sold." This is awkward and wordy. Maybe "The Crown seized the Jewish property." Done
  • Also, for clarity I suggest "Archae had been seized and destroyed during pogroms" Done
  • There are a number of problems with the citations. 1. 36 and 37 are blank. 2. There are four cite error messages at the end. typo, removed
  • "They place the expulsion". It is grammatically unclear what "They" refers to. Done
  • English antisemitism persisted into the twentieth century," This is a valid point, but I think it needs to be set in context. Britain (not just England) was safe for Jews compared with the pre-WWII massacres on the Continent and the continuing anti-semitism in the Moslem world. Modified to "as an outlook".
  • You have further reading as a sub-heading of 'References', but this is incorrect. Done
  • I think 'References' is better headed 'Sources' or 'Bibliography'. Done
  • It does not make sense to distinguish between 'Medieval Anglo-Jewish history' and web sources. I suggest deleting the sub-headings and merging. Done

  Resolved queries:

  • You do not need to repeat the footnote about archae each time the term is used. This seemed easier as readers don't always read whole pages?

• The same applies to wikilinks but we do not keep repeating them. It is usual for readers to use Ctrl-F to find the first use of a word they want further information on. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll change that. Done Jim Killock (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• • passim: there are page numbers provided for these; but the articles also include a lot of additional information, eg would need 10 plus extra cites to list out all the places they back the point out. Isn't it OK to provide a page ref and indicate more can be found, ie passim?

• It is not fair on readers to expect them to search through an article for the relevant pages. You should list them. Also I have never come across a need for citing 10 or more relevant pages. It would have to be a very long stretch of text making many points which would probably better have several separate cites. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the single page I cite does suffice, as it is the summation of the argument the article makes, but the reader would benefit from reading the whole article in these two cases, if they are interested in the topic.

The Strickland article I cite regarding images that justify the expulsion has a 15 page exposition of the Exodus story as an a analogy of the expulsion, for example, and several other examples of antisemitic images apparing to conflate Biblical and contemporary Jews. There are, therefore, mentions and evidence throughout, some more useful than others. WP doesn't need a citation for all of them to check she makes this point, or to understand the core of the argument, but it is helpful for the reader to know they might want to give it a thorough look through if needed. Most of the article is relevant and contains information "throughout", hence, passim.

Likewise, regarding "state-sponsored antisemitism", Stacey makes this point clearly at the end of his article, where I have cited him (page 177). But half of the article is an exposition of why and how Edward was operating state antisemitism. So I went with indicating the rest of the article was relevant. I've modified this to 172-176 passim, as this is where he makes the argument, it's not necessary to read more than p177 to understand the point, but 172 onwards are helpful and contain this point "throughout".

It wouldn't be the end of the world to lose the passim tho if this is better from a policy perspective. Jim Killock (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I went with removing the passim on the assumption that references on Wikipedia have the narrow purpose of verification, rather than the wider purpose of helping the reader find information. So: Done. Jim Killock (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet resolved:

  • 4. You need the Morris page numbers. Yes - I only have the ebook currently so this will have to wait a few days

  Jim Killock (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)