Talk:History of the Jews in the Netherlands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improvements[edit]

Hey, I just changed some things:

- Changed "a Jew" to "a Jewish person" \ - Defined Rabbinic Law in the article's context (specifically having a Jewish mother, in this case)

Hope everything works out! - Jay Kay 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Any input is welcome! Rick86 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: List Of Dutch Jews[edit]

As being one of the main contributors to this article, I wish to explain why I have put people on the 'Dutch Jews' list who are not Jewish by Rabbinical law (because they only have a Jewish father).

Of what I am aware of, all these so-called 'father-Jews' have portrayed in the media a special connection with their Jewish heritage, and therefore feel a stronger bond towards Judaism. That includes, for example, Loretta Schrijver, who's father is a Holocaust survivor, and which, she has said several times in the Dutch media, has strongly influenced her as a human being.

The same goes for Xaviera Hollander, who also mentions her Jewish father and her own Jewish heritage in some of her books. However, I do understand that these people are nevertheless not Jewish. It is considered to be a fairly difficult subject in modern Judaism, and has caused a lot of debate, not only in the United States within Reform Judaism, but also in the Netherlands, where there is a large group of people with a Jewish father, of whom some feel a strong bond with the Jewish community, although there are not seen as Jewish by Rabbinical law. Can anyone help me out here? Rick86 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another piont of interest: the article mentions Jews not being welcome in Utrecht. It might be clarifying to note, that Utrecht was a Bishopry since 722, and therefore under Roman-Catholic rule. Lokimaros 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the entire list to the List of Dutch Jews. Please see explanations for the move on that talk page. gidonb (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoah[edit]

The following text is included in the Holocaust part on Dutch Jewry:

Yet even more recently this view too is now seen as too simplistic. The high amount of jewish victims is not that easily to blame on anyone and wartime sources make it clear most Dutch were very concerned with the Jews but helping wasn't easy. Indifferent were very few. Also finally people are daring to look at the fact that many jews (1 in 7) didn't even try to find a hidingplace and that many went voluntarily and without resistance to the camps. Also we now understand why the civil servants could do little to help and that most resistance they took part in has remained invisible. It seems the Dutch media in the 1950s was too positive about the Dutch role during the war, from the 60s onwards the media was too negative, today historians finally are putting forward a more balanced opinion. Many did support and help the Jews but it was nearly impossible to do something that really did something to change the situation. Recent books have supported and proven this new and more balanced view on the Dutch history. "Victims & Survivors,The Nazi persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands 1940-1945" By Bob Moore was the first English book since the 1960s that looked at original sources and creates a very new and more understanding view of the Netherlands and the Dutch Jews during the war. Another book is "We leven nog" (were still alive" by Bart van der Boom, reporting on the research of Dutch wartime diaries and German secret reports, proving that the majority of Dutch indeed was very concerned with what was happening to the Jews. We must also not forget the February strike in 1941 when thousands of Dutch protested in public against the way the Germans treated the Dutch Jews. The only strike of its kind in any occupied country.

I have several objections to the text: 1) It does not state a SINGLE source. Allegations as "Indifferent were very few", "Many Jews [...] didn't even try to find a hiding place", "the Dutch media in the 1950s was too positive about the Dutch role during the war, from the 60s onward the media was too negative" etcetera etcetera. Two books are reported as source afterwards (one by Bob Moore, one by Bart van der Boom) but the least thing the author of this text could have done is referring to one of these sources when making the allegations as shown above. Rick86 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. No sources, and clearly an attempt to defend the Dutch nation. That might be an altogether worthy and achievable goal, but it ain't right without citations, at the very least.Ledelste 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been languishing for two months without any resolution and rehabilitating the text to a neutral point of view would in any case be extremely difficult, I've excised it from the article. We should probably put the information back in, but it has to be written neutrally from the start. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I'll leave the rewriting to the original author of the piece. Rick86 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank listed as a Dutch Jew[edit]

I don't know why Anne Frank is listed as a Dutch Jew -- she's a German Jew, but lived in the Netherlands. I know this is stated afterwards, but this doesn't make her Dutch. I think her name should be removed and placed on the German list (if not already there) --SaraFL 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more Jews on the list we were not born in the Netherlands, but who did made it to the list because, for example, they became known as rabbis, philosophers etc. only after they started living in the Netherlands. Anne Frank wrote her famous diary in the Netherlands, and is considered by many in the Netherlands as being Dutch. However, as you said, she was indeed born in Germany. Which would make her German. Hmm tough one. She DID end in the top 10 of the election of The Greatest Dutchman in 2004. So she is seen by many in the Netherlands as Dutch (my guess is, being a Dutchman myself).. I think there are arguments in favor of as well as against the listing as Anne Frank as a Dutch Jew. Anyone else has a suggestion on this one? Rick86 11:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed questionable to list Anne Frank under the category of Dutch Jews, but the problem is of course that she is widely considered to be at least 'culturally' Dutch. I would not advocate removing her from the list, but would add a 'caveat' that Anne Frank never held Dutch citizenship, also if we follow a strict legalistic argument, she could not be listed under 'German Jews' either as she will have lost her German nationality under the Nuremberg race laws. I think adding her to a list of 'stateless jews' is not appropriate. Under the circumstances I think it best to include her in both Dutch and German lists. --Isolani 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Frank is claimed by the Dutch as being Dutch and by the Germans as being German. Given the policies of both countries, she did not have either citizenship, but she can and should be seen as belonging to both nationalities. Out of the two, she can be seen as belonging most to the Dutch nationality as she lived most of her short life in the Netherlands and her legendary diary was written in the Dutch language. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialists (?)[edit]

I hestitate to comment as I know very little about Dutch history. However, I was struck by this unreferenced claim:

Dutch Jews were staunch supporters of the Dutch monarchy until the late 19th century. Most Jews became socialists during the early 20th century and were fully integrated into the socialist pillar before the Holocaust.

This is so close to well known stereotypes of the time that I feel it needs some discussion and elucidation. After all, at the time socialism was atheistic and appealed primarily to industrial workers and some intellectuals. The notion that many Jewish traders, merchants or the majority of self-employed Jewish professionals were socialists seems rather odd, even in a pillarized society. It may be that they had nowhere else to go in the circumstances, or it may be that the claim is accurate; but it needs discussing here and, if accurate, it needs careful substantiation. Norvo (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is true, quite easily explained: Jews were not likely to vote for Christian parties often, so most of the Jewish voters voted based on their income class, as the Jewish population was economically and professionaly (if we overlook a lack of farmers compensated by traders) structured identical (!!!) to the general population more Jews were "poor" (think labor) and voted for the people defending their economic interests i.e. socialist, "rich" Jews voted liberal mostly for the same econic reasons, in politics the Dutch Jews voted true to class, not to religion, that said, both liberal and socialist parties had Jewish politicians, but if Moshe Hollander had the choice between a vote for the goyish politician of "his economic class" party and the Jewish one of the other the goy got the vote. So Jews were fully integrated in the liberal party to, but being LIBERAL that was not a strong pillar in its own right, so one could not be fully integrated into that. Norvo, the truth is that Jews did behave in this aspect exactly like normal non-farming non-Christian Dutch citizens did, because that is what they were as a group. The main pillars were Protestant, Roman Catholic and Socialist, where would a Jew gravitate to, do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.112.226 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edits by User:Italik[edit]

I've just reverted a series of about 30 edits made by now blocked User:Italik over a two day period representing an apparent attempt to reorganize this article. This user is, was, the latest in a series of sockpuppet accounts whose edits are often highly questionable or contentious. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th) and User_talk:Italik. My eyeball comparison of the first and last edits showed a page that, as revised, seemed a bit more visually appealing, but which lacked a variety of information that the prior versions contained. Given this user's history of sloppy and irresponsible editing it seemed that the wiser course was simply to return to the prior version, rather than try to parse the edits one by one to salvage whatever value might be contained therein.

I have no particular stake in this reversion, so if anyone thinks I've overstepped and that the article is better (and at least as accurate) with the subject edits in, rather than out, feel free to revert me. I am just noting here my reasons for the reversion so that other editors won't think I was acting arbitrarily. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Customs[edit]

It might be appropriate to list some of the customs of the Dutch Jews in this article, seeing that there is no other article on this. Some have recently been collected, e.g. in ISBN 9789074498036. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the Jews in the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19th century[edit]

Two characters currently not discussed are Abraham Carel Wertheim and his brother-in-law Barend Joseph Stokvis. Surely worthy of a mention? JFW | T@lk 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of the Jews in the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Jews in the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Netherlands&oldid=1212732686"