Talk:Sol Hachuel

Tone

I'm a bit concerned with the tone in the article. It portrays a very black-n-white image, in which Muslims are unambigously evil, whilst the article subject is described in terms of "heroine", "sacrifice", "beautiful", etc.. The article talks in very absolute terms, even though we are dealing with witness accounts from the 19th century. The source for the quotes in the reference is a 1839 publication. The reliability of exact wordings is, of course, hardly 100%.

This is not an isolated phenomena. In this period, stories (real, fictional or semifictional) of brutal injustices committed by one community against the young and innocent of one's own community were common. Not the least, the notion of martyrdom of youngsters figures in blood libel accusations. At several points, those arguing that the Jews were guilty of atrocities against Christian children and youth would claim that there were eyewitness accounts and would, probably, have put these accounts into text. So, with similar logic as has been applied in this article, Wikipedia could be flooded with articles copypasting quotes from the Protocols of Zion and other contemporary texts.

Rather, the main encyclopediatic focus ought to be to concentrate more on which role this story plays in Sefardi folk culture, how martyrdom is conceptualized, etc.. --Soman (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no reasonable contemporary source would lend any credence whatever to the blood libel myths, let alone the forgery that is the Protocols. It's true that uncovering the Truth with a capital T from an event like this is difficult, but we use what we can. I certainly would like to see Muslim sourcing on this, if such exists and Soman, if you can bring Sefardi sources to bear, that would be excellent. IronDuke 03:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this subject since before, but I note the wording in Sefardim: The Jews from Spain p. 57, "...Sol Hachuel, in Fez. She was decapitated in 1834 for refusing to become a Muslim. The reasons are not entirely clear, but it seems that a young Muslim who ... Her coreligionists considered her a martyr of Judaism, giving her the name Sol la Sadika [Hebrew, the Saint], and still remember her in a long folk that tells her story..." --Soman (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another text; [1] When women appear in these texts its mostly as characters in biblical narratives or as archetypical heroines. For example, in the much-loved nineteenth-century narrative of Sol Hachuel, a Moroccan Jewish teenager is executed for refusing to abandon her faith" --Soman (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was rather surprised you compared the facts described in the article to Protocols of Zion that is proven to be an anti-Semitic hoax. This article is about real event. The beheading of the girl was witnessed by hundreds of people. There's her grave that is shown to tourists even today. There are inscriptions on the tombstone that provides account of her death. Please watch the video. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're getting me wrong. I'm not saying that this a hoax. However, I think we should look at the tone of text in the article, and provide some more ambigouity in the wordings. Romero's book, first published in 1837, would not qualify as a RS source today, it talk about eyewitness accounts, but don't specify any further. --Soman (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Then probably all books by Josephus that are used as sources for quite a few articles cannot be considered RS either. After all they were written 2000 years ago. Just saying...--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't copy-paste a lengthy quote from his work and present it as undisputable truth. But, the key issue here is which wordings we use. The more problematic passage is the "Arrest and execution" section, which is far to detailed considering the quality of the sources. Do note Diaz-Mas', professor in Sefardi literature, comment that "The reasons are not entirely clear, but it seems". Compared to Andrew Bostom, Diaz-Mas does not appear to be a pov warrior. --Soman (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the reason about who and how gave Sol in is not entirely clear, but how does it matter? Maybe it was her girlfriend, maybe it was the sultan's son, who fall in love with her, whatever... The most important facts are that the 17-years Jewish girl was beheaded by Arabs. It is written on her tombstone. Andrew Bostom has absolutely nothing to do with so called POV. He simply repeats what was written by Eugenio Maria Romero. All other sources provided in the article confirm that original account, including the one you provided by Díaz Más. She writes ".Sol Hachuel, in Fez. She was decapitated in 1834 for refusing to become a Muslim.(period) The reasons are not entirely clear (what reasons? the reasons why she refused to become a Muslim, but not the fact she was decapitated for refusing become a Muslim). Please do not forget, we also have the painting by Alfred Dehodencq. He made the painting after he traveled to Morocco himself. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Have you read Bostom's website? 2) Where is the sourcing for the dialogue with the Pasha? --Soman (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I, for one, think the tone is fine. One editor's opinion, based on having read a bit of the underlying material, and edited the article. But I'll take another look as I cull through it again. Perhaps there is some tone around the edges .... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I would also suggest that most if not all of the scare quotes in the article be changed to block quotes.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Soman, I am not sure we're looking at the same source (all quotes on Bostom's website are sourced) , but I added the original book as a source now.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche, I do not know what "block quotes" mean, but please do change the quotes, as you believe is better. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it reads pretty well now. Reminds me a bit of the Edgardo Mortara story though that was a Catholic one. Stellarkid (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"The most important facts are that the 17-years Jewish girl was beheaded by Arabs" if this is the MOST important fact , then most definitively, I must agree with Soran, the article lacks any analysis , or historical context, turning it into a "Tales of heroism for the edification of the jewish youth". A tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia, POV or not. 184.34.10.192 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the general view above that the article needs to be expanded to take account of, and summarise, the different versions of this story. It should be based on genuine, objective, historical scholarship in preference to polemicists such as Bostom. A lot of work still needed. --NSH001 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said quite a fer times before Bostom simply quoted the book that was written by Eugenio Maria Romero El Martirio de la Jóven Hachuel, ó, La Heroina Hebrea (The Martyrdom of the Young Hachuel, or, The Hebrew Heroine). The book by Romero was written in the accordance with the eyewitnesses accounts. All accounts I was able to find on the NET repeat the same version, with slightly different accounts, of how the alleged conversion happened, but none of the accounts question the execution itself. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

Taking a look at all the sources in this article:

1. www.andrewbostom.org - the most frequently cited source in the article. This is a one-man-band website, with a highly partisan agenda. There is no way this site could qualify as a WP:RS for anything other than the views of Andrew Bostom himself. It should be removed. I don't think it would be difficult to find alternative sources where necessary.

2.

• Dov Noy, Dan Ben-Amos, Ellen Frankel, Folktales of the Jews: Tales from the Sephardic dispersion
• Eugenio María Romero, El Martirio de la jóven Hachuel, ó, La heroina hebrea
• Israel Joseph Benjamin (1859), Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846–1855
• Charles Dickens, et al: Bentley's miscellany, Volume 31

These are book references, and therefore acceptable. (re comments above, I don't see why a book's being published a long time ago necessarily makes it any less reliable)

3. "Sulika", a PDF from sephardiclegacy.com - this looks fine to me

4. David Warren (2008) This is just a blog post. Should be removed. (note: there is another source labelled "David Warren (1860)" which does not appear to be by Warren at all).

5. "Tangér y otras utopias" this is a blog, but the blog author (Domingo del Pino Gutiérrez) states that the information comes from Isaac Laredo, Memorias de un viejo tangerino, C. Bermejo, Madrid, 1935, so it might be acceptable on that basis. However, Laredo states that Hachuel was only 14 when she was executed, which contradicts all the other sources I've seen (and strange that Gutiérrez supplies a "portrait présumé de la héroine juive" of a woman obviously much older than 14, and wearing elaborate jewellery, which her father could not have afforded)

--NSH001 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Andrew Bostom sources each and every quote, and each and every important point that was used in the article.
2. Andrew Bostom wrote the book "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims", (ISBN-13: 978-1591023074), Prometheus Books; Reprint edition (June 5, 2008), where he repeats exact same story about Sol (just search for "Sol Hachuel" and you'll see it) as is at his website, and uses the image of her beheading as the cover image for the book. I just did not use the book as a sources because it is offline source.
3. Practically everywhere few sources are used to confirm one another.
4. I added yet another book source in few places.
5. David Warren (2008) is used only once and two other sources are used at the same time. It is never used as a single source.
6. "The portrait" which is displayed at "Tangér y otras utopias" of course is not real. See here "Il ne s'agit pas du vrai portrait de Lala Solika. It is not the true portrait of Lala Solika" about the same image. The source in question was used in only one place, and only to explain the traditions of the Arabs in Morocco in their relationship with the "infidels", who they sometimes count as their saints. The site was not used to source anything to the particular story, and now it was replaced with the original source.

I hope that above points should be enough to satisfy any questions about the sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you're getting there!

But the point remains, there is absolutely no way the bostom site can be used as a reference. I suggest you cite to his book, which is a WP:RS. Standard book citation, provide a URL to the amazon search result. The Warren ref still has to come out. It's not necessary anyway, since you already have, as you say, two supporting refs. You still haven't corrected the ludicrously named "Warren (1860)" ref.

My note on the "presumed portrait" was a side remark, intended as evidence on the reliability or otherwise of Gutiérrez. Not a big issue.

--NSH001 (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I took Warren out, but I cannot understand what is the problem with Bostom's site. His site is an exact copy of the chapter from his book. He is the author. I added link to his book to the reference to his website, but I do not know why the author's site is not RS, while his book is. Would you like pdf better?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I replaced website source with the book. I hope you satisfied now, and could reflect it at DYK.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thank you. The article is fine for DYK now, which I will deal with shortly. I agree it does seem a bit odd when the book and (the relevant part of) the website are the same, but the wiki rules are very clear - all publishers have a quality control process, websites don't. Anyway it's a good rule to use the best quality sources you can find (books and peer-reviewed journals are the best). I always try to source stuff I write to books (doesn't matter if it's not online) if at all possible. --NSH001 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of this article is problematic, it reads more like a romantic tragedy than an encyclopedic entry, and appears in several places to conflate fact with myth. I would not have approved this for DYK in its current shape had I seen the nom, but it could certainly still use a cleanup. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I have read about this story in many Hebrew sources. Among Sephardi Jews from the Maghreb area this story is very well known and frequently told in details. In fact these days, where not many Jews remain to live in the Maghreb's countries and now live mostly in France and Israel, still each year many of them -maybe thousands, spend a lot of money to visit Sol's tomb. The story is being documented in academic sources, at least in Hebrew and is not told in romantic tone there. However, aside for the different tone, the details given in this article are similar and valid.--Gilisa (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not contesting the basic details of the story, just the way they have been presented. The presentation is overtly sympathetic to the subject, which violates NPOV, and it appears in places that insufficient distinction has been made between elements of the traditional story and the actual established facts. For example, the first source I looked at makes a clear distinction between the two, but the article itself does not. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The presentation is not POV if it conforms to RS's. IronDuke 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

$40

$40? what currency is that? Dollars? Thoraeton (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is in dollars. This number came from the original source El Martirio de la jóven Hachuel, ó, La heroina hebrea By Eugenio María Romero. It is at the page 33 in the last paragraph. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it definitely is not dollars. The sum is forty duros (from the Spanish-language source above), no connection whatsoever with the U.S. dollar. The "40 dollars" appears to come from Bostom, a sloppy translation and a good example of why he should be avoided as a reference. --NSH001 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to put instead 40 duros and link to the page about Spanish pesetas that talks about it, or find the real amount in Moroccan currency if it is available somewhere. Not by converting it. That would probably be original research. Thoraeton (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I advise against linking to the Spanish peseta, as that would be almost as misleading as "dollars". Just stating duros would be fine. --NSH001 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I do not think the translation is wrong. Please see Spanish dollar. It does call dollars in 18 hundreds. I will go ahead and change the article in accordance with it to 40 Spanish dollars.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't find a page for duros in Wikipedia (there is a disambiguation page). Instead they are defined in the page about pesetas. Duros should be linked to some place saying what it is, you can not assume readers knowing it. @M. A duro is not a Spanish dollar. Thoraeton (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A duro was like 5 pesetas a Spanish dollar 8 Thoraeton (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact duro is mentioned in some wikipedia articles Spanish peseta and Peso. I am not sure what link should be used in the article. NSH001, maybe you could fix it as you believe it should be fixed? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, Spanish dollar makes no mention of duro, nor of Morocco. Until the advent of the euro, in Spain "duro" was an alternative term for a 5-peseta coin, a coin of very small value, but we can't draw any conclusion about the 19th century Moroccan coin from that. It is best to stick simply to what the source (Romero) says, i.e., duros. --NSH001 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that Peso does mention Spanish dollar as a main article and duro too. Google translate also translats it to dollars, but I of course would not mind to call it "duro". I am just not sure to what article it should be linked to because very few people know what "duro" means.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a suitable article to link to. All readers really need to know is that her father had great difficulty raising the sum in such a short time. The only objective facts we can state are the amount and currency at the time, otherwise we wind up with speculation over inflation rates and currency exchange rates. --NSH001 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "all readers really need to know is that her father had great difficulty raising the sum in such a short time". That's why I linked it to Spanish dollar, because the currency, and even the amount do not really matter. If you'd like me to change "40 Spanish dollars" it to "40 duros", I will, but IMO it could create new questions in the feature. So up to you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A Duro is the haketia word for a Dirham

• Well, the paragraph makes perfect sense with the amount removed... Thoraeton (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  That may be the best solution. Linking to Spanish dollar or anything else is bound to be misleading. --NSH001 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

French inscription at the tombstone

According to the online dictionary the word "rentrer" may have different meanings, from which the word "return" is #6, and the words "get in" is #1. That's why I believe that this edit by user:Insert coins is the way it should be in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed tag

I'm not the one who added this, but I agree. The article could be retained with minimal changes to content or sources if it were recast as a folktale, per one of the only reliable sources cited (Folktales of the Jews), but these free nineteenth-century sources (as well as sources that depend on them, like the "Sephardic Legacy" PDF) are known not to be the most reliable because they're frequently outdated scholarship and sometimes pretty much fictional, and we shouldn't be citing them for anything significant. If it's to be treated as a factual event, there are going to have to be better sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the tagging as I explained in this edit summary. The second source you mention above does not appear to add anything new, it is merely being used as a supplemental source. Correct me if I am wrong please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You say that you don't see any problems with the author, but this is perhaps because you are unaware that Bostom is both virulently anti-Muslim and lacking any expertise in history, and that Prometheus Books's output tends towards the anti-religious in general and the anti-Muslim in specific. If you can't find it in scholarly, non-agenda sources, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, particularly if it's contentious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Very badly written

I'm sorry, but I just can't understand this:

In Asian countries the code of Maliki like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan was well known and always used by family members who where none muslims who gave their daughter in exchange for gold, silver and jewels, the daughter where given away to the Sheikhs or Nawabs and would love them very much and converted to Islam as well. But it is very difficult for Jewish women to do that and the code of Maliki can not be accepted by Jewish women who will not work with Islamic religion. Sol Hachuel never accepted Islam and already had a relationship with a muslim men and properly was out of her Orthodox culture family lives. Sol Hachuel gave already signs to the Muslim family that she had an affair with a muslim men at the end she said no to Islam while the Moroccan family had invest back then a lot of money in her, that's why her head was cut but she was already giving signs and the Moroccans have put so much money in her without positive outcome. The Jewish girl forgot that she was not Esther from old Asian Iran with a Parsi king & religion who was in other time period where beauty of a women and their Jewish religion was accepted by Asian men.

I have only read up to that point, and already my head is hurting. Can someone who is familiar with the topic and is fluent in English rewrite this article. No offense to the original contributor. 202.46.85.118 (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)