Talk:Jewish diaspora/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A few notes on conversion

I have added a few lines on the rather undoubtable fact that during the hellenistic period, the spread of the Jewish religion to most major cities could not be wholly attributed to migration. The Alexandrinian population alone was likely as large as the entire amount of people living in the area of Israel. Convertites formed a large fraction - it is well known that the Hasmonean kings had an active policy of spreading the Jewish religion, so this is certainly not controversial. This does however give reason to state that the diaspora is to some extent spiritual - descendants of Alexandrinian convertites could of course not be said to be physically exiles from Israel. I hope no-one takes offence. Respectfully, --Sponsianus 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Search anomaly

Why can't I find this important article when I search for "diaspora" in Wikipedia search box? There are many articles assciated with the word "diaspora" but this most important article can only be found using the search text "Jewish Diaspora" or "jews captivity". Aamir Berni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamoonia (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

A small question: In the description of the picture it is written that: "In Rome the Arch of Titus still stands, depicting the enslaved Judeans and objects from the Temple being brought to Rome.". I read that these were Roman soldiers carrying the objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.157.191 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally lacking citations

How do we know all this stuff:

1. 2 Roman destruction of Judea
2. 3 Dispersion of the Jews in the Roman Empire

There are no sources given in this article or the Wikipedia articles referenced. I will remove these sections unless someone can provide citations. (Please do not cite sources which merely recite legends).Fourtildas (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have removed this stuff:

Dispersion of the Jews in the Roman Empire, etc. Fourtildas (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also no sources provided in sections "Pre-Roman Diaspora" and "Early Diaspora." (66.231.222.205 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

The Diaspora in Contemporary Jewish life - Removal of 1st 3 paragraphs

Actually, it seems like these three paragraphs belong in the section immediately before this one, on the Negation of the Diaspora by Zionism. I'm moving them to the end of that section. TaraIngrid (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand the first few paragraphs here. If the purpose of this section is to give a history of the Jewish (or non-Jewish) conceptions and values relating to living in the Diaspora rather than Israel, then it needs a lot more detail and context.

E.g. "Contrary to the Israel-centric Zionist view, acceptance of the Jewish communities outside of Israel was postulated by those, like Simon Rawidowicz (also a Zionist)...."

Acceptance? By whom? Of what? Everyone agrees that these communities exist! I think this must refer to a more either religious or philosophical conversation about the value/purpose of diaspora communities, and the first few paragraphs here really don't do that justice. They just seem to confuse the issue.

If the purpose of this section is just to give a demographic overview of the current diaspora populations, then those paragraphs don't really belong here.

Since they don't do a good job at the first task and are unnecessary for the second, I'm going to delete them. If someone wants to fill out this section with more information (for example, it would be really interesting to possibly talk about Pope John Paul II's historic and dramatic change in the Catholic Church's understanding of the existence of a Jewish diaspora community), that would be great.

TaraIngrid (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion explained

That section is weaselly -worded ("some historians"), unreferenced, uses Wikpedia itself as a source, and places undue weight on the extreme fringe position of one historian which has been debunked by all serious researchers of the subject. I hope this better explains my deletion. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input, it does better explain why you deleted the material. I don't however agree with the idea that the claim that the exile is largely a myth would have been "debunked" by other researchers. In a review of Sand's book in Haaretz, for example, Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University, disagrees with certain things Sand says but also states that

"Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions."

which sort of goes in the other direction to your statement that "all serious researchers" would disagree about the point. Since Haaretz has re-organized their site the link to the piece no longer works, but the salient point is cited e.g. here link Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source which states the same thing:

Despite the fragmented and incomplete historical record, experts pretty much agree that some popular beliefs about Jewish history simply don’t hold up: there was no sudden expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for instance. (...) Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70.

In fact, the case looks clear enough and I'll make the edit now, taking your points concerning sourcing into account. --Dailycare (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

that's fine, so long as we use that source correctly. I have modified your inaccurate paraphrase accordingly. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DC, your recent paraphrase does not seem to be an accurate representation of the sources used. The NYT source, says in one place, 'there was no sudden expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in A.D. 70', and in another place , 'Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70.'. These statements don' rule out that most, or many Jews were exiled, or that Jews were exiled from communities other than Jerusalem, or that the exile happened in phases, rather than in one fell swoop. By omitting these qualifiers and descriptors, your version makes it seem as if the sources support the idea that there was no exile at all, which is not correct. HupHollandHup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

Hi, I think the quotation from Haaretz does support the notion that the exile is substantially a myth, regardless of year, and the NYT source appears consistent with that. Of course, there is also Sand's work but these two sources may be better in that they describe what experts in the field generally think. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If all you have is the quote from Haartez, which also does not say that there was no exile, only that it is treated minimally in scholarship, then at best, you can attribute that claim to Prof. Baratl. Sand, whose expertise is French history, is not a reliable source on these issues, as his popular book has been largely dismissed by actual historians of Jewish history and by geneticists. The paraphrase, as you have it, is simply not supported by any of the sources you have brought forth. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Sand's book has received criticism but it's not accurate to say it would have been "dismissed" by other historians (or "geneticists", what do you even mean by that? geneticists study hereditary issues and an exiled person has the same genes as the same person who moved voluntarily). Wrt. the NYT source, there are two statements: 1) "exile of all Jews from Jerusalem", and "exile of the Jews from Palestine". We're using the second one here since the article deals not only with Jerusalem. Finally I've included more of the wording from Haaretz. I'd tend to not use attribution for Bartal here but won't revise it if you choose to include it. We do have, after all, the NYT source saying substantially the same thing on a general level. Hopefully we're now in agreement concerning the text. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

21 months later

Jayjg, your deletion of the text discussed in the above after 21 months of consensus is totally inappropriate. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I've always read that "Diaspora" in "Jewish Diaspora" should be capitalised. In all other uses it should be lowercase, but Jewish Diaspora is distinct. In other cases, such as "African diaspora," the word "African" serves as an adjective to the noun "diaspora." But because "Diaspora" is a proper noun referring to specifically to the Jewish Diaspora, when using the full term "Jewish Diaspora" (to avoid confusion, since the term is widely used now) you retain the capital "D." Here's a link discussing the capitalisation: [2]. I'll add this link as a reference where there is a call for citation regarding this issue at Diaspora. Please share your thoughts. —Zujine|talk 00:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of cultures have had a diaspora: there is nothing definitive about the Jewish experience. All humans other than black sub-Sharan Africans are part of a diaspora, so if there were a definitive case, it would be that from the Rift Valley. Kevin McE (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Had a discussion on the MOS Talk Page about this. No change is needed. Just thought I'd bring it up for discussion. —Zujine|talk 06:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence structure

This sentence: " A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine." implies that they were only mercenaries on that island. Is this the intended meaning? or should it read "In Egypt, a large number of Jews on an island called the Elephantine became mercenaries in Upper Egypt."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.90.98 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I think Galut and Jewish diaspora cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, and since our priority of WP:NPOV prompts us to have articles with a worldwide perspective, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. The merge shouldn't be too hard, since the galut article is so short. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So obvious. Just do it! --@Efrat (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Uncontested merge. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews of Iberia, North Africa and the Middle East

According to the article (and my knowledge), Sephardic Jews are from Spain, while Jews from the middle east are Mizrachi. Was that distinction made later?Hithisishal (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sephardic refers to a religious ritual, Mizrachi refers to a geographic location. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but they are different. It's a common mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.185.219 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Ankh.Morport and Evildoer have been edit-warring a set of quotation marks in the article, so I figured it's time to discuss them here. The text proposed by the duo reads: While the myth of exile from Palestine is dismissed by "serious Jewish historical scholarship",[8] the destruction of the Second Temple. This is wrong since WP:quotation says that "Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source". WP:INTEXT provides that such quotes need in-text attribution, which is here absent, and indeed not needed as discussed above. The source is reliable for this plain statement. Another point is the selective proposal here: why not propose to rename the article to "Jewish" diaspora? The term Jewish appears in sources after all. As this relates to a pattern of concentration on this text, it may the that you guys haven't yet internalized that the scholarly consensus indeed is that no such exile took place, we have three high-quality sources to that effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:QUOTATION is an essay that is not apparently relevant here. More seriously, the sentence itself appears to violate Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and this must be fixed, or the sentence removed as a violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal how to change the sentence? We could of course say e.g. "professional historians", although I personally don't see a plagiarism issue here. --Dailycare (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact now that I read WP:PLAGIARISM in more detail, it says that "A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs. In addition, if the source is not free, check to be sure that any duplicated creative expressions are marked as quotations." So that doesn't seem to be an issue here. --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare, do not pretend even for a second that you didn't participate in the edit war. Either way, the quotation marks were necessary because it was a quote from the source itself, and especially because the sentence itself, if left alone, would reflect a non-neutral POV.

I'm going to go see if I can get some more experienced editors in here.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to comply with WP:CANVASS. --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=531147613&oldid=531076945

There is a quote in the article that is missing its quotation marks, because one editor insists on having them removed. Not only is this a possible violation of WP:PLAGIARISM, it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV as the wording of the quote itself does not reflect a neutral point of view. This may seem like a minor issue on the surface, but we are nevertheless at an impasse.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a few observations concerning this RFC: Firstly, Evildoer187 is topic-banned from "editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Secondly, the "quotation" isn't in fact a quotation. The article says "serious Jewish historical scholarship", and these are the quotation marks Evildoer wishes to see in the article. The source states "serious Jewish historical discussions". The reasons why quotation marks aren't necessary here are evident in the thread immediately preceding this one, even in the hypothetical case the wording was the same. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this article doesn't relate to the I/P conflict. Second, you claimed that the "serious Jewish historical scholarship" bit could not be modified because, in your words, "that's how it appears in the source". In other words, it's a quote, so why isn't it in quotation marks? Further, using the word "serious" in this manner does not reflect a neutral point of view, or WP:NPOV.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to go back to the drawing board with this paragraph. It is only sourced to two newspaper articles. Both in serious papers and doubtless by serious journalists. But that is not how we source statements about history. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that Dailycare said "that's how it appears in the source". I checked, and the source does say "serious Jewish historical discussions". There shouldn't be any quotation marks around that, and I'm neutral about whether or not the word "serious" should be there. JumpDiscont (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, Bartal (who is used in as the other source) is in fact a senior academic. --Dailycare (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those are scare quotes, not "quote quotes". They should not be there. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the source says "serious Jewish historical discussions", that means we have to put said passage in quotation marks.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "scare quotes"- has anyone thought of using 'single quotes' to demonstrate a citation? It automatically avoids the problem. However regarding the sentence itself, personally I wouldn't see the need for its inclusion. Quotations are generally for citing facts/ figures/ and statements etc made in original works without losing its sense, but this is not even a sentence. Why not just re-word it? Maybe try and avoid WP:POV which using 'serious' implies (after all, is there anyother kind of scholarship than serious?), and use modern [or traditional, whatever] Jewish historigraphy which ultimately says the same thing in your own words and in a nneutral fashion. Thanks for allowing me to butt in and best of luck! Basket _Feudalist 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the previous editor, scare quotes are not the way to go here. If editors believe there is a copyviolation issue just reword it. Dlv999 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying to do, but Dailycare insists on using the words the source uses, without quotation marks. This is problematic and certainly not neutral. In any case, consensus seems to support a revision of the sentences so I will go ahead and make the changes.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been based on whether there should be quotation marks around four words in the article. You have made significant changes unrelated to those four words. In fact bizarrely you left three of them in place while changing material over which no copyviolation concerns have been raised. I intend to revert your changes to the material not covered in this discussion because the changes are not supported by the sources. Regarding the issues discussed in the RFC, I would support Basket Feudalist's suggestion of using modern Jewish historiography or perhaps modern Jewish historical scholarship but I would be open to other suggestions. I would oppose Evildoer's "some segments of Jewish historical scholarship" because that is not what Bartal is saying at all, he is saying that in serious academic discussions the notion is entirely excluded. Dlv999 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question to Evildoer: Why don't you actually go and look for some sources to support the changes you want to make? The current text is a reasonable reflection of what the current sources say. The changes you want to make are not supported by the current sources. If you want to have any chance of your changes sticking in the article you are going to have to find some WP:Reliable Sources, that support your changes. Dlv999 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've solved the problem using WP:NPOV - I've explicitly cited the speaker and source, and provided the full quotation, so that all WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOR issues are resolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare, I've had to fix this edit of yours because it violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. NPOV is quite clear: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Your edit had Wikipedia making claims in Wikipedia's voice, when, in fact, the material you inserted was a statement by the journalist Patricia Cohen. In addition, you removed the part of the paragraph noting that Israel Bartal made his statements in a book review in Haaretz, which is rather critical context, and instead inserted generic material about Bartal himself, which is easily found through clicking the link for his name. In addition, I discovered that whole sentences had been copied verbatim from Cohen's articles without being enclosed in quotation marks - an obvious violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. I've properly enclosed the whole passage in quotes now. More generally, Itsmejudith's statement of 18:34, 11 January 2013 is extremely important: "You need to go back to the drawing board with this paragraph. It is only sourced to two newspaper articles... that is not how we source statements about history." I've fixed what I can for you, but in the future, please take more care with these edits, and find more appropriate sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what Itsmejudith would have said if she had looked at all of the historical sections of the article and not just the small passage under discussion in the RFC. The entire historical coverage of the article contains exactly 6 citations, 2 of which are from the passage under discussion (Pre-Roman diaspora=0, Early diaspora populations=0, Roman destruction of Judea=2, Dispersion of the Jews in the Roman Empire=3, Post-Roman period Jewish populations=1). Dlv999 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jayg, what kind of criteria would you suggest that we employ when deciding whether to use in-text attribution? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for example doesn't seem to apply here, since we're reporting what the consensus opinion is among scholars. In Earth, we woudn't say "In 1994 a BBC reporter stated that most experts say the Earth is round". Bartal as a senior academic is reliable for a statement on what the bulk of the profession thinks on this, and likewise Cohen when writing in the NYT is reliable for a similar statement. If we were to follow the logic you're proposing, articles would consist mostly of statements along the lines of "X said Y". Further, why do you feel it's "critical context" that Bartal or Cohen wrote in a book review? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare, that is a good question - in fact it is THE pertinent question here. However, in my experience Jayjg never answers such questions "directly" in discussions on topics where he has an underlying POV (which given the content being discussed, is highly likely here). So we can expect his response to create a diversion and then not provide any criteria, just in case you manage to find sources which achieve it. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In the current case, the "pov" doesn't need to be attributed because what this journalist says complies with the description of the events by scholars. Attributing this gives the feeling this may be controversial when it is not. Maybe other sources on the topic should be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We can only regurgitate what is out there, and frame it in neutral terms. Removing the quotations defeats that purpose. What DC is doing is essentially "see? this site agrees with me, therefore it must be true". That is original research, and we cannot do that.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A senior academic specializing Jewish history would be a reliable source for a statement about academic discussions in that field. It would not need to be attributed unless another source of equal quality is identified that contradicts what the source (Bartal) is saying. That is standard practice in the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is hopeless. I'm going to see if I can get some more people in here.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It said "scholars", therefore we need more than one scholar to back this up. At the very least, it can be phrased in less misleading terms. Otherwise, it sounds like a case of WP:UNDUE.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources say "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine" and "the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) (...) is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions". Therefore, the sources say that scholars dismiss the myth and there is no problem in saying so. I realize you've now returned to this issue and I'll have to ask you, if you've considered the possibility that there may be nothing wrong in the text after all? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Half true

And leading to dangerous conclusions: "The revolts in and suppression of communities in Egypt, Libya and Crete in 115–117 CE likely decimated the Jewish Diaspora population". We should all know that it hurts friends when one doesn't provide truthful feedback. The above is part of a general practice of eulogizing to the detriment of truth, it is tendentious. I am of course referring to the fact that the statement mis-characterizes a mass slaughter of gentiles by Jews in Cyrenica and Cyprus during the Kiva revolt. The Greeks saw hubris leading to destruction. We should work towards an honest understanding that though Europeans have guilt for terrible crimes the Jews are not guiltless when they have the upper hand.65.34.232.202 (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead ignores the fact that this topic is highly controversial

This entire topic is central to Zionism, yet much of it has been confirmed as "mythical" by historians. There is a well sourced small paragraph hidden in the depths of this article which explains this (although certain editors have been trying to remove it for years).

After so many years of edit-wars, shouldn't we all grow up and explain this controversy to readers in the lead?

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed edit for the lead? I tend to agree that since sources have established there is a widespread incorrect understanding relating to the subject, a mention in the lead could be in order. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Before I try, i'll make a list of controversial sub-topics. It's probably worth explaining in the lead that the reason this topic is so controversial is that all the points of controversy go to the ethics / morality / legitimacy of reversing the perceived dispersion through Zionism, the creation of Israel and the Law of Return. I'll add to this list:

1. ) Whether there was an exile
2. ) Whether "galut" is better translated as "exile" or "diaspora"[3]
3. ) The extent of historical conversions to Judaism
4. ) Connection between the modern and historical Jewish diasporas (in other words, to what extent is the modern Jewish diaspora related to the biblical and roman dispersions, i.e. whether today's modern Rabbinic Jews are a single ethno-religious group representing the descendants of ancient "dispersions", rather than a number of different ethnic groups who profess the same religion primarily via historical conversions and intermarriage)
5. ) Relative impact of the events of the 1st century on the diaspora (i.e. how much was "chosen dispersion" vs "forced dispersion")
6. ) Identity of the diaspora Roman Jews (i.e. of the ancient Roman diaspora, how many were or became modern Rabbinic Jews vs Christians, and how many of the early Roman-era references to Jews actually referred to Christians (see e.g. Judaizers and Jewish Christians)

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Before expanding the controversy in the lead, I think it should be developed in the core of the article with reliable sources about the topic.

Personaly, I am not aware of it and I could not find much about this in the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll try to finish the list first, then add to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ! :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a recent book by Boticelli titled "The Chosen Few" that examines Jewish history from ca AD 70 to ad 1500. The author cites extensive sources including various population estimates from the time periods in question. The research presented in this book seems to contradict Sands' assertions, especially where Boticelli asserts (with citations to population estimates), that the Jewish population in the Levant was growing smaller in the first few centuries AD, and Boticelli attributes this to conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Boticelli asserts that the Jewish population grew under the Abbasid Caliphate after the rise of Islam, but Botticelli attributes this growth to Jewish populations migrating from rural areas to cities, where the high rates of literacy in the Jewish population were an advantage.

As I said, Boticelli cites numerous sources with regards to the population figures. The sources cited by Boticelli do not seem to be consistent with Sands' claims of large-scale conversion to Judaism at all, and seem to show the opposite. Tomorrow I'll go through the Boticelli book and double-check the cited sources and see if I can add in some population figures for this, since the raw numbers at least should improve this entry, and this entry desperately needs more sources.

I would also like to point out that the New York Times article that was cited is very clear that Sands is not an expert on Israeli or Israelite history. I believe that the article clearly stated that he was an expert in French history, which would diminish his value as a source. The article that was cited also seems very clear in its conclusion that Sands' book was politically motivated, and the article states that Sands appears to have shaped a narrative to fit his political conclusions rather than basing his conclusions on historical research. To be clear, this was the conclusion reached by the NYT article that is cited in this entry, not my personal conclusion. I would also strongly advise any Wikipedia editors that our primary goal should be to ensure that this article reflects the best mainstream historical consensus about these historical events It should not be our goal to shape this historical article based on some contemporary nationalist controversy over immigration rights or borders. If your goal in editing this article is to raise awareness over some contemporary geopolitical "controversy", then with all due respect I do not believe that your goals are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Hyperion35 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest you input your thoughts at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People instead? No-one in this thread mentioned Shlomo Sand. By the way, Sand didn't write anything "new" in his book that other scholars hadn't already written about as relates to the diaspora. The controversy over the diaspora has been ongoing for more than a century, as the central component of the controversy surrounding Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sand appears to be the main source for these statements in this article, however. Or at least, it may be more correct to say that this article cites what appear to be reviews of a book written by Sand. Further, while Zionism iself is a form of stateless "diaspora nationalism", the existence of a several large connected Jewish Diaspora cultures (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc) long predated Zionism. Since the topic of this article is the Jewish Diaspora, and since my interest in reading this article was to refresh my memory about the basic overview of the Jewish Diaspora, I think that it would make more sense to focus on the 2000 year history of the Jewish Diaspora rather than focusing on a narrow political controversy regarding a nationalist movement that has only become a major issue within the past century and a half. Zionism is an exceptionally recent development in the context of the much longer history of post-Temple Judaism. There is some excellent data out there regarding the demographics and total numbers (estimates, obviously) of the post-Temple Jewish population in the centuries following the fall of the Temple and the Bar Kochba Revolt. If you can find reputable sources (Sand does not sound reputable, from the NYT description), that support your contentions, go ahead. I'm simply saying that we should keep this article focused on the history of the Diaspora and focusing on providing good reliable information rather than trying to get involved in some sort of political controversy. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hyperion, thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree that we should keep it focused on the history of the diaspora. The period of history you initially allude to (i.e. the last 1,000 years) has minimal controversy surrounding it. The highly controversial area is the history prior to that - i.e. 600BCE until 1000CE. The point here though is that it is simply not possible to write the history of the diaspora during this period without taking a POV on the controversy surrounding that period of the history.

If you don't know what i am referring to, chapters 2 and 3 of Sand's book provide a summary of the key issues in the historiography of the Jewish diaspora - these chapters are pretty factual and escaped most of the right-wing wrath (which was primarily focused on his chapter 4). Again, these chapters don't contain anything "new", they just summarize it in popular form. You might compare the concepts he refers to against our article on Historiography and nationalism.

The main point is that what you think you know as "Jewish history" was written simultaneously with the birth of Zionism, and the historians who proved successful were those who painted a connected and romantic story of Jewish history in a way which which captured the growing pro-Zionist sentiments of the time (see also our article Romantic nationalism). It is therefore not possible to completely separate Jewish history from Zionism, as whilst Zionism is relatively recent, so is the study of Jewish history as we know it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources other than Sand? For example, the sources that Sand himself cites? I am actually fairly certain that there are good quality sources of Jewish history that predate Zionism, or that are unrelated to Zionism. Botticelli cites a number of sources in her history of Judaism that covers roughly AD 70-1500. The period that you mention, 600-1000, is coincident with the rise of Islam, and so there is almost certainly a large amount of sources covering this period. If I remember correctly, Botticelli asserts that this period saw an increase in the Jewish population under the Abbasid Caliphate (and possibly also under the Umayyad Caliphate, but not certain, I will have to check). Botticelli also discusses the migration of Jews into Muslim Iberia at this time. Botticelli includes multiple sources for demographic estimates as well as contemporary historical information including royal court records and individual letters. I have not read Sand's book, but the NY Times review cited n this article seems to claim that Sand's book has an explicit political goal. If this is true (and you have to admit that the title of Sand's book seems calculated to be offensive), then it seems prudent to search for more sources to confirm his assertions. The Wikipedia article on Ashkenazi Jews has a large number of cited sources, perhaps there is useful information there, as well as the article on Sephardic Jews.

Wikipedia is not a place to try to "rewrite" history or to try to further political goals or political messages. I see no reason why this article needs to be the place to try to change "what we think we know about history". As I have not read Sand's book, I'm not even certain what you mean about most of Jewish history being wrong. I think that you need to step back and try to approach this from a neutral, apolitical perspective rather than charging in to try to right some great wrong. Let's look at what the actual sources say. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To address your points:

1) Yes there were many who wrote about Jewish history throughout time - starting two thousand years ago with Josephus prior to any diaspora/exile, and continuing with Rabbinic scholars through until the early 19th century. The history written by the Rabbinic historians is different to what was written in modern times - it covers the story of the evolution of rabbinic scholarship, not the creation of diaspora and/or continuity between Israelites and modern Jews. This article and our discussion above refer to modern popular Jewish history as it is often written in modern times and taught in Israeli schools, which is very different to what was written by the Rabbinic scholars.

In other words, pre-19thC there existed "religious histories of Judaism" whereas from the 19thC on (in parallel with the birth of Zionism) there existed "nationalist histories of Judaism". So to clarify, it is not possible to completely separate "nationalist Jewish history" from Zionism, as whilst Zionism is relatively recent, so is the study of "nationalist Jewish history" - which is what this article contains. We cannot present one side of the story here without mentioning the scholarly dissent, summarised by a number of authors including Sand, but existing for more than 100 years.

2) Above I was referring to 600BCE until 1000CE, not 600-1000CE.

3) I am not sure if you have been reading my posts because your final paragraph above is misrepresentative. My proposal is very simple - there is a well known controversy in modern scholarship surrounding this topic, and after many years of edit wars, we need to agree a description of said controversy which is acceptable to all.

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations are definitely needed for that. There was plenty of Jewish history written prior to the 19th century that was not necessarily religious in nature. Consider Benjamin of Tudela's census from the late 12th century in which he travelled throughout Europe, North Africa, and Mesopotamia, recording the number of Jewish households. The very fact that this census exists seems to contradict your basic thesis that pre-19th century Jewish history was written as religious history. Benjamin of Tudela was quite clearly conducting a demographic survey, and he clearly was operating from the viewpoint of Jews as a unified ethnic group.

Further, Tudela's accounts match other sources in estimating that the majority of the world's Jewish population was located in Mesopotamia at that time. The Jewish population in Iberia was beginning to grow, consistent with the expansion of Muslims from North Africa at the same time. Thus this is consistent with a migratory expansion into Europe. The existence of distinct Sephardic and Ashkenazi traditions is also consistent with a migratory diaspora, as are their core similarities. How exactly does Sand explain this? How does Tudela's census fit into this? How does one explain the widespread rabbinical court system used to settle disputes among Jews at this time, absent a unified ethnoreligious culture? There is ample evidence that long predates Zionism that attests to a unified ethnoreligous diaspora. And if you actually bother to read Herzl (I'm guessing you haven't), you'll note that he doesn't just pull the idea of a unified Jewish people out of thin air, it's clear that he is not introducing the concept. Herzl accepts the diaspora for what it is and it is clear in his writing that he feels no need to justify the basic existence of the diaspora. Herzl's concept of Zionism was about ending the diaspora, that was the revolutionary concept.

The fact that some people might wish to engage in historical revisionism based on the political needs of today is rather irrelevant. Sand is not even writing about his area of expertise, and makes it clear that he has a political agenda. Contrast this to a well written history like Boticelli's, that cites numerous other sources and seeks to build upon them rather than pretending to rewrite history. Your comments make it clear that you intend to use this article to further your own political agenda, consider this a warning. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your rhetorical threat and continued misrepresentation has abruptly ended my interest in discussing this with you any further. I note that your behavior is characteristic of someone who has realized their weaknesses but is not willing to admit them. I am at the end my patience, but I will answer some points anyway:

• Benjamin of Tudela wrote a contemporary account of his travels; he did not write a history of the places he visited, much less a history of the Jews in those places. Many Christian and Muslim travelers recorded demographics of their said denominations as well - these works were not nationalist histories either. Frankly the suggestion makes no sense.
• Botticelli was an early renaissance painter. Botticini however is an Italian economist. The central point of her book is to challenge the previously held understanding of what happened in the early diaspora, contributing to the controversy I describe above.
• Your second paragraph above is WP:OR. I think what you wrote is totally illogical and shows how much you don't know, but that doesn't mean I take the opposite view. Not sure why i'm bothering but to answer your questions:
  • • no scholars dispute migratory expansion into Iberia / distinct Sephardic and Ashkenazi traditions prove nothing more than is proven by the Catholic-Orthodox split or the Sunni-Shia split / the system of Qahals was highly localized although local streams of Halakha were influenced by each other just as the Catholics and Orthodox influenced each other and different schools of Fiqh influenced each other / of course Herzl didn't invent any of the key concepts in Zionism - see Timeline of Zionism and also note the Pittsburgh Platform 12 years before Der Judenstaat.
• Frankly I don't care which view is correct, only that there exists a heated and well publicized controversy. It really is as simple as that.
• Your post suggests you see things in black and white. I encourage you to look closer at the "grey area" in between, where truth most often lies. And to do some more reading instead of having pointless arguments with me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispersion of the Jews in the Roman Empire

1) There are still many "citation needed" flags. 2) "Many Jews entered the Diaspora as slaves after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE." I have a problems with this. a) There is no citation. b) What does "many" convey? [Was there a major depletion of Jews in Palestine? - how many out of how many?] The balance of the sub-section is jarring when this is later followed by "The concept of Exile evolved even though substantial numbers of Jews lived in the land that had been Judea and Israel." A concept evolved? Was there or was there not a major exile? What references? What impact on the demographics of the southern Levant? The Cambridge History of Judaism volume 4 has citations that the Jews continued in a majority until the 5th C CE. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Over the centuries, the number of Jews gradually diminished to a minority in their historical land of Judea." Was this only due to expulsion and and deaths? Were there any conversions to Christianity and Hellenic paganism? If so, is there evidence for a massive hole left in the Judean popuation, or for large-scale immigration. In other words, what were the whys and the wherefores of demographic changes? The subsection is notable by this absence. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Population claims

Under the heading "Today", it claims that 345,700 Jews live in San Francisco, California. This is nonsensical. The total population of San Francisco is 800,000, so about 45% of its residents would be Jewish, if this were true. And if they were citing the San Francisco metropolitan area, that's still far-fetched; the total living in the metro. area is less than 4.5 million, which would make 8% of its residents Jewish. Even if they're talking about the entire combined North, East and South Bay areas, including the San Jose area, that's still just 8.3 million, or 4%; far higher than the 1.7% of the US population that's Jewish. I think that the area considered needs to be clearly expressed and the numbers need to be reconsidered and substantiated. Bricology (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source [4]. Personally i don't think 4-8% for the metro area is that absurd. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That source's methodology is highly suspect. It claims that the San Francisco Metropolitan Area is home to 345,700 Jews. However, the footnote for that claim reads "Our adjustment of original data. Includes the San Francisco area (San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Marin County, and Sonoma County), as well as Alameda County, Contra Costa County and Silicon Valley." What "adjustments" they've made, they don't say. Also, Sonoma County is not considered part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. And what is the "Silicon Valley"? No demographer would ever use "Silicon Valley" in such a manner. It's not geographically defined, and it's certainly not a county or municipality; it's just a catch-phrase for *some* of Santa Clara County, as well as some of the southern East Bay. So unless a reputable source can be provided for the claim, I think it should be removed. Bricology (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits

"Experts" and "serious" are, still, directly from the sources and there has been no agreement to change them. The Haaretz source was for some reason yet again edited out... I'm re-adding it without the direct link, it can be accessed via the archive link or, of course, in a library. Concerning the who-templates, we now have Bartal and Yuval which addresses that. Concerning the last citation needed template, it was placed immediately before the citation... Not sure what's meant by asking for a quotation as source is available online. If you prefer, you can of course insert a quotation from the source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok first off, just because the words "experts" and "serious" are in the sources is not an excuse to implement them in the article. If you want to do that, you must include them in quotations. The fate of the Jews and the exile are still highly contested and there is no scholarly consensus on what happened, so to include "experts" and "serious" reeks of polemics. Shlomo Sand in particular has been criticized to hell and back for his book, so at the very least, his critics should be given some space as well to balance things out. As for the Haaretz source, I edited it out because it was a dead link.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I'm not aware of any policy saying that anything in sources would need to be presented in quotation marks. I am aware of WP:NPOV which says we should present views from sources, and deviating from that is a problem which is why I've used the words from the sources. Bartal is in fact a critic of Sand's and we're using his view. The section of the NYT article as well isn't attributed to Sand, so all in all I don't see us using Sand here at all. Using "some scholars" and "some scholarship" inserts an element of doubt that isn't present in the sources we're using, which is why using "some" is a problem in terms of WP:NPOV. As a separate point, you've been actively doing this edit repeatedly despite there being no consensus for it, which is edit warring behaviour for which you've been warned. Continuing to do it after warning is risky as you may be blocked. Your edit should be agreed here, until that time the original version without "some" remains in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on copying the sources verbatim, then it should be in quotation marks. Otherwise, the article as it is framed right now will mislead people into believing that the issue has been settled and that anyone who disagrees is a moron. And since we only have a handful of scholars and a NYTimes article to go off of, it comes off as POV pushing. But since there's only two of us involved in this discussion, it seems we're at a stalemate.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with using quotation marks if you can name a wikipedia policy that says we need to use them. I don't recall seeing one, but there are many policies and I can't claim to know all of them by heart so I have an open mind on this one. On the other hand, Israel Bartal is a senior academic and I can't think of credible reasons why he wouldn't be reliable to state that the exile is a myth, in fact very much settling the issue. POV pushing, by the way, is pushing something that isn't what the sources actually say. Here we have in the article very much what the cited sources do say. Neutrality in wikipedia terms means presenting views according to their prevalence in sources, not presenting all views as having equal validity. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. As I've explained above, leaving out quotations marks for parts that are lifted directly from the sources is misleading and does not reflect a neutral point of view. This is especially true considering that the NYT article in question is an opinion piece. It could also be argued that what you're doing constitutes plagiarism.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that's one of the key policies in this project, however I'm not sure, where you see the requirement in that policy that we'd need to use quotation marks? And what, by the way, would we place in the quotation marks, since reading the source it says "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70.", whereas the article says "Experts have rejected the popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Palestine in 70 AD". The text isn't the same, but it conveys the same content, which is what the policy you provided the link to in fact requires that we do, according to my understanding of it. WP:V is another core policy, it guides us to "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation". I think the current text sounds very much like doing this, and we have the inline citation too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about quotation marks. I was referring to the idea that the article needs to maintain a neutral point of view. Usually, when referencing an article, it's generally framed as X argues this "*argument*", and not *argument portrayed as unquestionable fact*. The argument this NYT article puts forth is rather bold, so to speak, as there are still various archaeologists and historians who believe that an expulsion did happen in 70 AD, if not 135 AD.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I see your point. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV discusses attributing points-of-view, if I understand your comment above you're suggesting we attribute the first point to the NYT and the second one to Bartal. The last one we've already attributed to Yuval. I'm not strongly opposed to this, but do you have sources that dispute what the NYT, Bartal and Yuval say? If no such sources exist, I don't see much utility from attributing (we don't attribute everything after all) but if they do exist, then I agree that attributing could be a good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to that later. I've been preoccupied with other things lately, so I haven't had the time to update the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've returned to this idea. However, as discussed immediately above the ball is in your court. Do you have academic sources that state that serious historians would believe in the exile-in-AD70 idea? Neutrality doesn't require that everything is attributed. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion

"The complete destruction of Jerusalem, and the settlement of several Greek and Roman colonies in Judah/Judaea and the Land of Israel (and the changing of its name to Palestina and of Jerusalem's name to Aelia Capitolina) indicated the express intention of the Roman government to prevent the political regeneration of the Jewish nation—indeed to extinguish it and sever their connection to their homeland."

Where does this come from? If it is the opinion of a historian, an exact quote with attribution should be provided.

(The cited "Encyclopedia" recounts the Ten Martyrs legend :"destroy the very essence of Judaism", but that does not support the stated opinion.). Keith McClary (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition

The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars such as Bernard Lewis to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish–Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed far more brutally.

Source: Taylor, J. E. Oxford University Press publication. "Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction". The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

I deleted this recent addition to the article because the text bares very little resemblance to the cited source. For instance the source makes no mention at all about Bernard Lewis who is attributed in the text. There is a second issue in that the text does not discuss the topic of this article: diaspora or exile. So using the source in this article is probably WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" (bold text as per original policy document). Dlv999 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Nepal

An editor reverted an addition to the See also section here, when there are many indications of a 20,000/year visits by Israelis (backpackers, tourists) to Nepal. If that doesn't constitute a disapora, what does? Please include this article in your See also list, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well now, I'm glad to see that finally the Talk page is being made use of.

"Visiting" does not a "diaspora" make.

This is the last time I'm going to refer you to WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Balance and completeness

As a newcomer to this topic I find the article to be very disappointing on a number of fronts:

1. Where is a list and summary of the various Jewish diasporas in the introduction, e.g. Babylonian/Persian; Egyptian; Hellenistic; Modern?
2. Should the topic not reflect these: How caused?; Why?; Were they by choice or forced?; impact on population size of Israel? Return?
3. Instead at least 25% of the article is devoted to genetic studies
4. The speculative sections without citations still remain, decreasing the quality yet further
5. There is no comparison of the ancient diasporas with the modern diaspora which is well in excess of the population of Israel

I understand that a lot of debate has taken place, but regretfully comment that it does not appear to have been substantive. Irrespective of this wealth effort, I suggest that a full revision be initiated. I think what I am trying to say is that I support (and will partake in) some radical changes notwithstanding the 'Talk' history and length.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree concerning e.g. the genetic studies. Please feel free to edit the article, as long as you're not reverted you can assume that what you're doing has consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Hillcrest WHAP class

Hi Hillcrest WHAP class - many of your edits are not following Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verification of content, and our guideline for sourcing, WP:RS. Your two edits to the Jewish diaspora article are unsourced. If you continue editing in this way, you will get blocked to call your attention to the problem, and if you persist beyond that, you will lose your editing privileges altogether. I know there is a lot to learn, but the editing community has put these policies and guidelines in place to help editors make Wikipedia a reliable source of information for the public and not just a garbage dump of random opinions. They are really important! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"The concept of Jewish exile from Palestine is dismissed by serious Jewish historical scholarship."

This needs to be reworded. The source it quotes says something different. In the source it says: "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions." That is different than what it says in the Wiki article. It says that it is negligible in serious discussions. It doesn't say it is dismissed. The definition of negligible is: "so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention". It doesn't say in the definition that negligible means "dismissed". It can mean that something is true, but it is not worth talking about. Dismissed has the connotation that it isn't true. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, merriam dictionary you use defines a myth as "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true". See also the other source cited in the same paragraph. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Myth has different meanings for different contexts. If we are talking about Greek mythology that relies on supernatural belief, this is impossible to prove. A myth (which is synonymous with legend, fable, etc) can also be something that hasn't been proven or disproven. Myths can also be proven correct, such as the Trojan Wars. That was considered to be myth, legend, etc, until it was found be to be more than likely true based on historic events, yet it is still considered a myth, legend, etc. Here is the full definition of myth: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". It says ostensible in the definition. The definition for ostensible is: "being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real". To say that Jewish exile is a "myth" as in, not true, is patently denying history as there are many examples of Jews being in exile. One such example is the exile of Jews from Jerusalem and it's surrounding areas by the Romans. Another obviously being the Babylonian exile. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Plausibly rather than demonstrably true, indeed. In other words, it could have happened, it just didn't. The myth exists in popular culture, just not serious historical discussions. See also the other source: "in the popular imagination (...) in contrast to the accounts of historians (...)". If you'd rather say "absent" than "dismissed", I don't see a problem. I don't see a meaningful difference either. "Negligible" is worse English but also means more or less the same. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What it's means when it says "plausible rather than demonstrably true or real" is that it could have happened, we just don't have concrete proof. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in other words. Also, as I said before, there were periods of exile that are 100% historically true such as the Roman exile of Jews out of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas and the Babylonian exile. I think exile needs to be accurately defined either in this talk page or have it's own section in the article because historians seems to have differing opinions on what exile is. It's literally all over the place. In other wiki articles dealing with Jews and exiles, it says that Jews were in fact in exile. Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What edit, to be exact, are you suggesting to the article? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think we should accurately define what an "exile" is in this talk page or add a section to the article that details what certain historians and scholars consider an exile. Some historians say there wasn't an exile, yet others claim there was an/were exile(s). One of the major exiles, the Babylonian Exile has exile in it's name, and it's something that pretty much every historian and scholar agrees happened. Hell, Jewish Diaspora (the name of this article) has the connotation that Jews were forced out of their homeland and largely denied en mass return, which was the case during multiple points in history. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is diaspora, which isn't the same thing as exile. But I for one am of course open to considering a suggestion that you may have. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Jews are in a diaspora because of exile(s). Diaspora and exile are synonyms.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/exile?s=t

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/diaspora

Many redirects in Wiki when it comes to Jews and exiles comes to this article. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Invention of the Jewish People

seems worth a link from here, no? (I realize that this is controversial; but we should/could report the controversy.) 79.70.74.77 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be controversial. Shlomo Zand is an Israeli historiographer and all he does is show that there was no "Jewish Diaspora", that the whole idea is a late Christian myth. There are no contemporary accounts of such a movement of people, none at all. Unless someone provides a source, this stands as fact. Wikipedia is about sources. What is controversial about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.185.219 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Army and the subsequent slaughter and dispersal of the Jews is a matter of historical and archeological fact. Genetics has proven beyond a doubt that the majority of Jews living in the diaspora are linked genetically to populations that reside continuously in the Middle East. The presence of these shared genetic mutations in diaspora Jews do not lie. Shlomo Zand is an anti-Zionist who admits that his histories are politically motivated. Mr. Zand is not cited by serous historians. You will find him cited almost exclusively by anti-Zionists. Without these persons, Mr. Zand would have no audience. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55

I'll try including a reference to Shlomo Sand. The fact he appeals to post-Zionists and non-Zionists is not a reason to excluded his research. Wikipedia should be a NPOV, not a solely Zionist POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research in “Genetic analysis” section

Doing a very quick check of sources cited in the “Genetic analysis” section, I found in most the word “diaspora” never occurs. In some where it did occur, the claim was that “diaspora” was only one of multiple theories that could explain common genes with others in the middle east. A lot of original research has been added to get to the narrative in this section from the sources cited. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for going through the trouble of doing that, please go ahead and edit the article based on your findings. In particular, content from sources that are silent on the Diaspora should be removed and the rest should be presented according to the viewpoints in the sources, obviously. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancient vs continuous

@Editor2020:, do you intend to expand the lead? Because right now it reflects only the ancient background of the diaspora, or about one sixth of the article. If not, I believe it should be replaced with something much shorter and more general, on the lines of

The Jewish diaspora (Hebrew: Tfoot'za, תפוצה) or Exile (Hebrew: Galut, גלות; Yiddish: Golus) refers to the the Jewish populations that have lived outside the (Land of Israel/Palestine/The ancient Hebraic sovereign kingdoms therein). Israelites and Jews came to live in other regions due in part to a series of wars and exiles. They constituted a great majority of the Jews (from Bar Kokbha?), until the 20th century when, with the advent of Zionism, about a (third?) of the Jewish population has come to live in the state of Israel...

I believe this reflects the uses of the term - historical-demographic, religious and national-political - more accurately than the focus on Assyrian exiles. trespassers william (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to cut out too much that was in the article, but if you feel that is better please feel free to do so. Editor2020, Talk 16:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(p.s. I think you'll find that I didn't add, but deleted about 900 bytes. That other information was already in the WP:LEAD. -Editor2020, Talk 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ))

Relevant RFM proposal

The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger.GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Worthless and untrustworthy

As any user of Wikipedia knows, Wikipedia falls apart when it involves any politicized topic. This article is no exception. Lack of citations. Negligible, tendentious sources. Articles from Haaretz? Books that no one ever heard of? Don't waste your time, and fact check everything.

For example, take these sentences from the article: "The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina in 70 or 135 CE that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not correct.[21] The concept of exile is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions.[22]."

Look up the sources for 21 and 22 and it is a joke. A book that is not even about the subject that no one has read and an article from a political newspaper. The single source cited for 21 is particularly egregious, a book about minority reparations that itself cites no sources. What should be done is to cite the differing views, not to base such an assertion on so little. And you can repeat this process all throughout the article. You can use an article like this to look up sources, but that is about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrodog1234 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Alex Bein says ""The Jewish Diaspora as such, the dispersal of the Jews over many countries, did not come into being after the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish State by the Romans in the year 70. It existed much earlier, alongside and in connection with the homeland. But—and this is the foundation and the inner truth-content of the traditional historical consciousness—it received from the development that began at that time its special character as the "exile” of a homeless people that is designated by the Hebrew word galut or f’olah. Only the reestablishment of the State of Israel in 1948 provided the impetus for a new development in this respect as well. The beginnings of the Jewish Diaspora go back many centuries before the year 70 C.E. Some of its causes were peaceful and others violent in nature."[5] But of course other viewpoints need to be shown, please go ahead and add them. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

-Considering there was a second Jewish revolt after 70 CE I imagine not. What happen was the destruction of the Jewish state, a lot of death, the selling of thousands of Jews into slavery and a number of other steps culminating in the entire province being renamed. I assume Josephus and other Roman sources can be safely considered pre-zionist. LOL. Having the Jewish state destroyed and Jews no longer permitted to enter Jerusalem or to practice their faith in the region seems pretty definitive. I certainly agree that the Jewish population was no solely in Judea. But to say the issue of a Jewish diaspora is more complicated is quite a bit different than viewing the aftermath of the revolts as anything but devastating to Jewish life in the region, events which effectively caused the centers of Jewish life to be relocated. Point is a sentence like that claiming some authority for a single sourced claim should never be written. As to contributing, no thanks. Wikipedia works well in certain areas and is a lost cause for an issue like this laden with politics. [astrodog1234] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrodog1234 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The section you've chosen to critique as poorly sourced seems to be the best-sourced section of the entire article. I do agree that there's much in the article that is poorly sourced, but that particular part does seem well sourced. --Dailycare (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The origin of the term?

This is a bastardised Greek word that originally came from a description of the Ageanites during the Pelleponesian War in Greece. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Old Testament bible was translated from Greek into English, the word was simply in use as it had existed in its first noted use in relation to the Ageanites by Thucydides. The original translation is taken from Thucydides in his "History of the Peloponnesian War' (II, 27.) Why do people continue to spread such Zionist nonsense when Sheffer, et. al. have repudiated this nonsense statement over the last 30 years? --203.29.104.15 (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal

My edit removed the bold text of the following sentence that appears in the article:

In today's diaspora, the largest number of Jews (5,671,000 in 2003 1) live in the United States, 340,000 in Canada.

I felt the information about Canada added confusion. Does Canada's Jewish population constitute the second largest diaspora group in the world? If this is the case, please re-place it in a seperate sentence. As it stands, I do not understand why it was added to begin with; let alone at the end of a sentence about America's Jewish population.

Yours sincerely and respectfully, --Cormac Canales 19:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

russian and ukrainian jewish populations constitute about 1 million jews combained and the number of jews officialy in russia is unreal, from 2.7 million in the soviet union in 1930 to 200K today?

Militaryov calls this number "especially funny". By his estimate, the real number should be 2-3 million. See also Jewish Virtual Library

The ashkenaz sephard split did occur in the Dark Ages if you consider the Dark Ages as 476 CE - c800-1000 CE as the article Dark Ages indicates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.168.167 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Post-Aliyah diaspora inside Israel?

Paradoxically, there is even a "Mizrahi diaspora in Israel" consisting of descendants of Middle Eastern Jews who left the Jewish Diaspora (by living in Israel) but without leaving the Middle East! Go figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.101.21 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Re. Debresser

 ( The following is copied from my talkpage )

Dear Debresser, a user who seeks to change the consensus version is the user who, after being initially reverted, should initiate discussion on the talkpage. I am not the user who is in favour a change in the longstanding version (see e.g. this version from 2015). If you'll take a few minutes to read what the sources say, it is quite straightforward to realize that "some scholars" is not a neutral description of "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine (...)", "the myth of an exile (...) is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", ""in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity (...). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the last stable version said "some scholars". In any case, your edit warring is becoming annoying. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"not accepted by historians"/"not correct" has been in the article, in slightly varying wordings, in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the last one being in briefer form. "Some scholars" has not, wherefore it is not the stable version and "not accepted" is the stable version. You have made a revert without addressing the source interpretation arguments I present above, and yet charge me for edit-warring and lack of discussion, which is illogical. You have also, it appears, given up on the argument presented in your edit summaries that there would only be one source. Of course, one reliable source would be quite sufficient, but anyway, as I pointed out in my edit summary of March 9th, there are three reliable sources for this. Again, if you'd like to make changes to the stable version, we can discuss such suggestions. I'm copying this to the article talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:3RR discussion has shown clearly enough that this text was introduced in August 2015 by another editor with more detailed and balanced wording,[6] and was changed several times by you[7] and you alone[8] into the unqualified and unattributed statement that you are pushing here. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is basically that there is a widespread opinion, and then there is an opinion expressed in one book. That one opinion is stated as though such were the opinion of "historians". Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:V and WP:UNDUE demand that we attribute the statement to its specific source. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Debresser: I don't think you are on solid ground here. The phrase "some scholars" makes it look like there is some minority opinion, but the text gives two strong sources and one modest source which state that the lack of a mass expulsion (except from the Jerusalem region) is the scholarly consensus. There is no reason for not citing those sources for what they actually say. Zero^talk 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

See the following text from our Bar Kokhba revolt article, which has numerous sources that seem to disagree with the statement that Dailycare would present as "the opinion of historians":

The Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in the extensive depopulation of Judean communities, more so than the First Jewish–Roman War of 70 CE. According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews perished in the war and many more died of hunger and disease. In addition, many Judean war captives were sold into slavery. The Jewish communities of Judea were devastated to an extent which some scholars describe as a genocide. Roman casualties were also considered heavy - XXII Deiotariana was disbanded after serious losses. In addition, some historians argue that Legio IX Hispana's disbandment in the mid-2nd century could also have been a result of this war. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel, Emperor Hadrian wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina.

Please also note the NPOV phrasing of the sentences ("some scholars", "some historians"), which Dailycare should use as an example of how to edit. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The Bar Kokhba issue doesn't even mention the diaspora, wherefore it's irrelevant. Think of it this way: if sources say that "experts dismiss flat-Earth theories", we don't write in the encyclopedia that "Some scholars maintain the Earth is round". Further, as already noted in the edit summary of the edit timestamped 17:54, 9 March 2017, you comment concerning only one source is incorrect. And as noted above in my edit timestamped 15:47, 12 March, also one source would be fine. In fact, counting the Yuval source in the subsequent paragraph ("non-exilic"), we have four sources, not three. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"" Huh? It is all about the diaspora, which came about as a result of the defeat in that revolt, as the sources clearly state. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the apparent discrepancy between sources is due to imprecise reading of them rather than a genuine disagreement. Palestine was a lot more than Judea. The expulsion of Jews from central Judea does not equal the expulsion of Jews from Palestine and so does not support the mass-expulsion and exile story. As you are certainly aware, the expulsion of Jews from central Judea was followed by a golden age in the Galilee that lasted for centuries. Moreover, it is easy to find strong sources that state that already before 135CE there were more Jews outside Palestine than inside Palestine. Putting these facts together, the expulsions from Judea were not the primary cause of the diaspora — this is what the scholarly consensus seems to be. Zero^talk 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary. I agree, taking into account the diaspora in Babylon and other places, it is not hard to believe that there was a large Jewish settlement outside Israel, or even that most Jews lived outside Israel. There is however no comparison to the situation before the events of ca. 135 CE, when Israel was the center and - so to say - the homeland of the Jewish people. Even for the Jews who were born outside Israel, Israel was almost certainly a spiritual homeland. Much like present Israel is for many Jews over the whole world.

What you call a "Golden Age in the Galilee" was so only for Torah study, not economically or politically. And even that only in the eyes of later generations, because if we consider the situation more in depth, it becomes evident, that precisely because the level and degree of Torah study were actually declining, therefore it became necessary to make the large compendiums like the Mishnah and Talmud, which we now look up to as works of monumental importance. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should stick to the topic, which is what is the scholarly consensus opinion of the "myth of exile". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you say we try a compromise: according to Howard Adelman and Elazar Barkan, the widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina in 70 or 135 CE that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians. That both has your complete text, and uses clear attribution to the source of the statement per all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean, saying "according to Howard Adelman and Elazar Barkan, the widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina in 70 or 135 CE that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians. According to the New York Times, experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70, and according to Israel Bartal, The concept of exile is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions."? Why would we attribute specifically these statements, I don't subscribe that these are "Biased statements of opinion" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since these persons, as academics, are reliable for reporting the scholarly consensus view. Which other statements would you suggest we attribute? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole section is a mess because rather than using serious historians and scholarship it uses BBC episodes and Shlomo Sand without actually naming him. Israel Bartal’s response to Shlomo Sand should not even be used because we have so many better sources which are not polemic and give better context.

The section needs work but all I see here is more polemics.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand is for sure somebody who can't be quoted without attribution. He is highly controversial, according to many reliable sources.

@Dailycare The New York Times s not a source of opinions on history. In any case, this article can not represent a contested opinion as though it were mainstream fact. As I showed, and could add many more, the opinion in question is not mainstream and is contested. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear about how to represent such opinions in our articles. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the BBC or Sand being used as a source in the text under discussion. The NYT, though, like the BBC would be, is reliable for statements of fact like the one we're discussing. Furthermore, Bartal, as a senior academic, is eminently reliable for what the weight of opinion among reliable sources is in his field, and the same applies to Adelman and Barkan. In an earlier discussion (on another page) sources that reliably characterize what the balance of opinion is among reliable sources were referred to as meta-sources, since they make editing the project very easy in terms of neutrality. Instead of having editors assess what the balance of opinion is, we have a reliable source for it, which makes such sources highly valuable. We could use sources like Erich S. Gruen ("Focus on the consequences of the Temple's destruction, however, overlooks a fact of immense significance: the diaspora had a long history prior to Rome's crushing of Jerusalem. (...) Compulsory dislocation, however, cannot have accounted for more than a fraction of the diaspora" Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans, pages 2-3) but then assessing the balance of opinion is would be left to us. With the sources we already have, we know what the balance of opinion is and can present it as such, which is what we do in the current stable version. If an opinion is seriously contested, it should be presented as such, but where there is scholarly consensus, such as here, or concerning the roundness of the Earth, presenting a "he said, she said" account would fail WP:NPOV. And no, Debresser, your sources do not in any way assess causes of the diaspora, so you have not shown what you claim. --Dailycare (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

They do, very specifically. And the Wikipedia policy/guideline involved is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying something is so over and over doesn't make it so. They don't mention the reasons for the Diaspora, and further, only discuss central Judea. Concerning attribution, the current text ("The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina in 70 or 135 CE that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians") already attributes the points-of-view, the myth is presented as a popular belief and the non-exilic origin of the diaspora is attributed to historians. This is exactly what the cited sources say. Concerning in-text attribution, see also the guideline. We don't say "some scholars believe the Earth is round", for example, or "According to Prof. Deminow, scientists believe the Earth is round". --Dailycare (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We all know that. But that is for well-known truths. In this case we are talking about something that is controversial, moreover, that the article admits is contrary to popular notion. So we must attribute it. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not established it (the view on historians' opinion) is controversial. The text does attribute the opinion itself, to historians, and explains there is an incorrect popular notion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither have you "established" anything, since there are almost no participants to this discussion apart from the two of us and Zero. In any case, the sources from the paragraph I quoted about are clear enough evidence IMHO that this is at least disputed. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not responsive to my comment. FWIW, I've listed this issue on the NPOV noticeboard. Of course, as I'm not the editor suggesting a change to the text, I don't have a burden to establish anything, but that's not a point I'm emphasizing right now. --Dailycare (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died down (in detail you have not challenged my comment of 20:36, 17 March 2017), and the noticeboard discussion has also been archived in a stale condition. As there is clearly no consensus for the suggested change, I'm reverting the text back to the stable version. --Dailycare (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary: you opened a discussion here and on the noticeboard, and failed to garner any support for your position. That means that you have no leg to stand on, and what we should do is follow usual policy and use careful and clear language. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I opened this discussion and the one on the NPOV noticeboard, correct, since I prefer discussion to edit warring. However, as you grudgingly conceded in the edit warring case, your version is not the stable one and it would have been your task to initiate these discussions. The stable version precedes the IP edit of 27.12.2016, and consequently if you want to change it, you need consensus. As an experienced editor you probably know the edit you're suggesting is not correct, and as an experienced editor you also probably know you cannot "win" or "lose" by edit warring (despite what you intimate in your edit summary here), and the text can only be modified by consensus. You can only build consensus by discussion, and you've stopped presenting substantive arguments in this discussion thread. Apparently the admins decided this page is not covered by 1RR, so I'll change the text back to the stable version, and restore the sourced content you removed without providing reasons, which is contrary to WP:REVEXP. In case you choose to continue edit warring to the extent of even one revert of this content, I'll open a new case concerning you in the edit-warring noticeboard, which I'd rather not do as it is a waste of several persons' time. If you're still interested in changing the text, instead of reverting you can do what you're supposed to do, which is discuss and seek to persuade. --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have also shown with diffs on that [Noticeboard], that you are the one who changed the original statement, twice, and moved it from a balanced one to a unqualified and unattributed one, in violation of standing policies and guidelines. The fact that this went unnoticed for a while would seem to imply consensus, but in this I think it just escaped the attention of editors. Myself included. As you can see from this discussion, which has almost no other participants, it is not as though many editors seem interested in the subject. In any case, your weak claim can not stand against clear policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA/Ds now applied

Both the protecting admin (yours truly) and the blocking admin (CambridgeBayWeather) have decided to implement ARBPIA/Ds to the article. So, now 1RR and the consensus clause (currently being clarified at ARCA) are both in effect. Edit with these restrictions in mind, please. Thanks. El_C 23:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The ongoing dispute on this article

Let me state here, before this charade goes on too long anymore, that I have been following both Debresser's and Dailycare's arguments here since the beginning, and the only reason I did not intervene before is because I know that Debresser is a very responsible editor and he know very well how to follow WP policies scrupulously and to the letter, as he has been doing here all along. I am a 100% behind Debresser in this whole dispute from the beginning and up to his last revert. The fringe theory being advanced by Daylicare here is at best a completely debatable recent historiographical point of view, and at worst a certifiable "fringe theory" in terms of WP policies. I haven't had time so far to do real research on up to date reliable sources on this subject, and I didn't even go the RS noticeboard discussion unfortunately, but this has gotten too far now, in my view. As I said, I am 100% behind Debresser in each one of his arguments and replies so far (and in each one of his edits and reverts to the main article), and I am going to bring new reliable sources on the subject if this goes on. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think bringing more reliable sources is definitely to the benefit of the article and to a resolution of this dispute. El_C 23:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As I told Dailycare, my advise is to list an RfC which will decide once and for al this long, drawn out dispute. El_C 19:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I we need an Rfc to remind us what the policies say, the situation is crooked indeed. I think that a few more sources is the best way out of this impasse. I am pretty sure that in the end we will say something like: the widespread point of view is that... but there is a well-established minority point of view that... Which is what I said from the beginning: attribution. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jewish diaspora. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411050518/http://fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=525676&cid=84435&NewsType=80052 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=525676&cid=84435&NewsType=80052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518042318/http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=221939 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=221939
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518041740/http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=166969 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=166969

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) 05:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish diaspora. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209035446/http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf to http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510142551/http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041008/revival.shtml to http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041008/revival.shtml

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) 00:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing discussion here, relating to how to describe the expert opinion on the reasons behind the diaspora esp. about whether the diaspora is a result of forced expulsion. The operative sources are as follows:

Sources

"in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 CE, respectively). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." ('No Return, No Refuge (Howard Adelman, Elazar Barkan, p. 159)) "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions."(Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University) "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70." (New York Times) ""the dispersal of the Jews, even in ancient times, was connected with an array of factors, none of them clearly exilic" (Israel Yuval, in The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History (Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, Oxford University Press 2009 p.17-18)) "Focus on the consequences of the Temple's destruction, however, overlooks a fact of immense significance: the diaspora had a long history prior to Rome's crushing of Jerusalem. (...) Compulsory dislocation, however, cannot have accounted for more than a fraction of the diaspora", Erich S. Gruen, "Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans", pages 2-3) This text is cited in the section to Ilan Ziv: "The majority of Jewish people were already living in the Diaspora before the destruction of the Second Temple, with perhaps as many as a million in Alexandria for example" (I haven't separately verified this last source)

The options are:

• A: The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians
  

• B: However, some scholars argue against the idea that the diaspora is entirely the result of a sudden mass expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina
  

• C: (list the scholars cited) argue that the widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians.

A corresponds to the version of the text that has been in the article for several years. Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has been heavily re-formatted by Winged Blades ^Godric at 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).

Survey/Vote

• A--Personally, my choice is the first one (A), since the sources present the non-exilic diaspora as a consensus view among historians, which are the reliable sources in the matter. "Some scholars" would incorrectly assign this opinion to a group that sounds much smaller than what the sources say. And attribution with names, the third option, seems unnecessary since the sources do not present the fact that historians dismiss the "myth of exile" as a contested matter, they simply state historians don't buy this myth. WP:INTEXT seems to advise against this kind of attribution as well. In other words, there are two issues going on, 1) historians dispute the "popular notion" of an exilic diaspora, and 2) it is not disputed that historians are of this view.--Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also OK with DonFB's version below ("leading"). --Dailycare (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• None-- I oppose all of the above, in continuation of my opposition in sections above. The correct way to represent a disputed statement like this in Wikipedia is by attribution: "some scholars say" or "scholar-such-and-such says". Such is common practice, and is reflected in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. What Dailycare represents as a popular mistake, is 1. as he admits himself the mainstream opinion, and should be represented as such 2. not the point of view of all scholars, as shown above. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Version A says what the popular view is, and that historians reject it. 2) Historians are reliable sources concerning their own opinion. 3) The sources present the historians' view as a consensus view among historians. 4) Let's hear from uninvolved editors. --Dailycare (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Version A does not show that your point of view is based only on some historians, which is a serious problem.

Regarding "let's hear from uninvolved editors", perhaps you'd care to take your own advice? You post this Rfc, propose for all to ignore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and then want me to roll over and play dead?! Perhaps you'd like to strike that absurd comment of yours? Debresser (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment/Counter-proposal--I'd propose to rewrite that paragraph as follows:

  The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is incorrect. The diaspora was a gradual process that occurred over the centuries, starting with the Assyrian destruction of Israel, the Babylonian destruction of Judah, the Roman destruction of Judea, and the subsequent rule of Christians and Muslims. However, after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically expulsed the Jews in the first and second century CE from Palestine, it ceased to be the Jewish homeland for almost two millennia and Jewish life centered in the Diaspora.

  The sentence from Bartal should then be added to the sentence from Yuval.Debresser (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to explain how I see the issue, and from that, how I think it should be resolved. I think the problem is that until now, Dailycare and I both favored a certain version, without trying to look at the bigger picture. With that bigger picture in mind, I think this can be resolved easily.

The diaspora had many phases, starting with the Assyrians. The decisive phase, after which Jewish rule was discontinued for 2,00 years, was the result of the revolts against the Romans in the 1st and 2nd century CE. However, that phase was different from other phases which preceded it.

Simply put, the events of the 1st and 2nd century changed the situation from living both in Israel and in a Diaspora to living only in the Diaspora. Therefore, technically, all statements A through C are correct. But none do justice to the crucial change effected by the events of the 1st and 2nd century. The version I propose combines statement A preferred by Dailycare with other statements from that paragraph in a way that does justice to the crucial difference between the events i.e. the difference between having both a homeland and a diaspora till the events of the 1st and 2nd century CE and the end of a Jewish homeland in Palestine/Israel resulting in he center of Jewish life being in the Diaspora. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• None-I do not agree with any of the three versions. The article on Jews deals with this better see Jews #Babylon and Rome. First we need to define the Diaspora.Rabbinic Judaism arises following the messy end of Second Temple Judaism. Hellenized Judaism is generally not referred to as “The Diaspora.” Rabbinic Judaism is what scholars are often referring to when they say Diaspora. Diaspora has become synonymous with Galut because these scholars generally have deep Rabbinic roots which shaped their vocabulary.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• B or C seem to be the best options. However, this rfc needs to be formatted in a way that will make it easier for someone to close, and make it easier for others to participate. The resistance to this is embarrassing. AniMate 20:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am also willing to endorse the solution floated by DonFB below. AniMate 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• None See my comment below. DonFB (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• co-sign DonFB - RYPJack (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Detailed discussion

• Comment-Dailycare refers to 2 different concepts: "non-exilic diaspora" and "exilic diaspora." Diaspora, originating from the greek term as explained in the article, is the dispersion of a people, without accounting for the root causes of the phenomenon. It just describes the phenomenon without accounting for its causes. Exile, on the other hand, refers to physical expulsion through war, conquest, defeat, and dispersion. It refers to war and conquest, and to the physical imposition of suffering and expulsion by the victors over the defeated.

There is historical consensus that there was a considerable Jewish diaspora in the Hellenistic world prior to the two Jewish rebellions against Roman domination of Judea in the first and second centuries (66-70 and 132-135 C.E. respectively), which culminated in the destruction of the second Temple and of the city of Jerusalem as the capital of the Hasmonean state. And following the defeat of these two Jewish rebellions against Roman domination there was also exile and expulsion of Jews from Judea, adding to the already existing Jewish diaspora. But the defeat and destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem also signified the end of the Hasmonean state and of Jewish political independence in the ancient and medieval worlds, up until the 20th century. So there was a diaspora, and there was also exile, expulsion, and suffering added to it, and the loss of political independence and of a political center for the entire Jewish diaspora, all as consequence of the defeat in the rebellions against Roman imperial power. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The wording of option 'A' seems to require virtual unanimity among historians. Seems unlikely, but maybe it is so. Option 'B' is not as uncompromising, but the word "some" does imply that 'B' is a minority view. The wording of Option 'C' is too unwieldy; in any case, it appears to be the equivalent of Option 'A'. My suggestion, kind of obvious, I suppose: Make a statement that presents the contrasting views without taking sides. Something like:

"A widespread popular belief holds that sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina led to the Diaspora,[footnotes] but leading historians/scholars disagree with/do not share that view."[footnotes]

This version offers a little more wiggle room than Option 'A' and a little more assurance than 'B' by use of the word "leading". A different or added qualifier for "historians/scholars" could be one of the following: 'some/several/many/most'. Obviously, that would invite more debate. I'm not sufficiently schooled in the matter to offer a firm opinion, but if an alternate or added qualifier is used, I think "several" could suffice, supported by adequate (but not excessive) footnotes. DonFB (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. I have argued for attribution from the beginning. The only thing I have to protest again, as being at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in addition to being unsourced, is the usage of the word "leading". I'd propose "some historians". Debresser (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Some" fails since it disagrees with the sources, which present it as the consensus opinion. "leading" is supported by e.g. Bartal's rank, and "historians" or "most" by the consensus. --Dailycare (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.