Talk:Jewish diaspora/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bias check?

I don't wish to make this a personal attack, but Nishidani's page makes it very clear that he is actively opposed to the State of Israel.

He's been heavily editing this page about Jewish history. And while none of the edits are egregious and they are all referenced, collectively they seem appear to be a deliberate attempt to skew the bias of this page.

If this is inappropriate, let me know. But labelling this for a POV check for hopefully other editors to look at seemed like a reasonable choice.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bob, since you are commenting on other editors, I noted that your edit history shows that almost 90% of your 126 article edits have related to the Gaza Freedom flotillas. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right, but I didn't notice any POV change by Nishidani in this article, except for an "accidental" removing of sourced content that I restored. If you tell me a specific problem, I'll try to fix it. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to read up on the topic of the 'skewing' of Jewish history in Israeli education, which has attracted ample scholarship, then ask me. I am correcting statist versions of a narrative that find no support in the relevant scholarly community, and those scholars are not engaged in a 'war' with their own state: they are living up to the standards universally required by their profession of history. Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

He's made many changes to this article, but very few of them were actually improvements. Some of them were pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV. I suggest rolling the article back to the last version from June 24, 2018 and building it from there. I am gathering RS as we speak.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed up a repudiated meme written all over the article, which no editor had corrected for several years, despite the fact that it is universally known in Israeli scholarship to be false. This has nothing to do with NPOV, but with securing factual veracity to the article. Yaniv's point is correct. You should list whatever I removed and discuss it here. Reversion would only restore what we know to be false, aside from eliding several strong academic RS which bear on the article, and which were introduced to replace free unsourced composition by earlier editors. As to the dopey remark:'it very clear that he is actively opposed to the State of Israel,' this WP:NPA smear only tells me that the editor in question thinks Wikipedia articles should only be written by editors 'actively supporting the State of Israel', and not, as NPOV demands, composed by editors who write according to what our best sources state, wherever that may lead, regardless of nationalistic concerns.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a WP:NPA smear to point out that someone whose personal page is packed full of statements critical of Israel might be biased towards Israel and pushing forward something other than NPOV when heavily editing articles about Israel or Jews.

I think whenever an extremely pro-Israel or anti-Israel person heavily edits articles, it merits reviewing the edits to see to what extent they pushed forward their bias in the article. I'm about to head out on vacation. I'll try to look through the changes in more detail when I get back. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The topic of this page is central to Israeli Nationalist historiography (see the lede of Negation of the Diaspora). Nationalist history is, as the quote in the lead of that article says, “a toxic waste dump”. That is what this page would remain forever if we didn’t have editors with a skeptical eye contributing to it. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm critical of Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian territories, period. That is an utterly normal thing. In the good old days, colonialism was a negative, and human rights, not ethnocratic power, were considered central to civilization. I don't edit articles on Israel, but articles on Israel's systematical usurpation of a land it has no legal entitlement to, i.e., the 'other' in the I/P equation. I am biased, yes, because I edit to ensure both narratives get their due, not just one side.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The POV-check|date=July 2018 refers us to this talk page, where a discussion is supposed to follow. I've waited but there is no discussion other than a generic contempt for me as editor. So, unless someone can list bulleted points that are deemed problematical, so that they can be addressed, the tag is useless. Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"If you want to read up on the topic of the 'skewing' of Jewish history in Israeli education, which has attracted ample scholarship, then ask me. I am correcting statist versions of a narrative that find no support in the relevant scholarly community, and those scholars are not engaged in a 'war' with their own state: they are living up to the standards universally required by their profession of history.

I fixed up a repudiated meme written all over the article, which no editor had corrected for several years, despite the fact that it is universally known in Israeli scholarship to be false. This has nothing to do with NPOV, but with securing factual veracity to the article. Yaniv's point is correct. You should list whatever I removed and discuss it here. Reversion would only restore what we know to be false, aside from eliding several strong academic RS which bear on the article, and which were introduced to replace free unsourced composition by earlier editors. As to the dopey remark:'it very clear that he is actively opposed to the State of Israel,' this WP:NPA smear only tells me that the editor in question thinks Wikipedia articles should only be written by editors 'actively supporting the State of Israel', and not, as NPOV demands, composed by editors who write according to what our best sources state, wherever that may lead, regardless of nationalistic concerns.

I'm critical of Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian territories, period. That is an utterly normal thing. In the good old days, colonialism was a negative, and human rights, not ethnocratic power, were considered central to civilization. I don't edit articles on Israel, but articles on Israel's systematical usurpation of a land it has no legal entitlement to, i.e., the 'other' in the I/P equation. I am biased, yes, because I edit to ensure both narratives get their due, not just one side."

This is dishonest on multiple levels, and only seems to confirm User:Bob drobbs suspicions, as well as my own. Some of your comments are borderline racist to boot. Either way, it should go without saying that editors with strong points of view (which Nishidani clearly does have, per his own comments on here as well as his own user page) shouldn't be allowed to edit certain topics, at least insofar as their viewpoints animate them to such a degree that it interferes with their editing.

Either way, a list was requested by יניב הורון (Yaniv), so here it is. Please inform me if I made any errors.

1. In this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=849962866&oldid=847341864) Nishidani referred to the Jewish diaspora as a "religious concept". This was later reverted by another editor (not hard to see why), and then restored once more today.

• No. I referred to the term 'galut' as a religious concept, which a zillion sources would confirm. The fact that galut was glossed as diaspora, an ambiguous term which covers galut and secular diaspora,see Bowman p.191, and is a related term with distinct connotations (which no prior editor troubled to fix), caused this confusion. My edit was subsequently improved by User:Drsmoo. I restored this, and neither Yaniv nor Jonney contested it afterwards. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the version with religious concept removed. While there are religious meanings ascribed to the exile, it isn't a "religious concept". Also, the statement that only "Galut" was referred to as a religious concept is false. The line in the article was "The Jewish diaspora is a religious concept", which is false. Better with the revised lead by bob drobbs. Drsmoo (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not, and never is on Wikipedia, a matter of personal preference. The literature on Galut/Diaspora is thick, and universally makes a nuanced distinction between the two related concepts, one which I introduced simply because it is there. If our article glosses Diaspora with galut, the terms, as per customary practice, must be defined. It's not a matter of backing this edit, which removes the strong source defining galut as religious, without explaining why it isn't. That removed one of many sources that highlight a common scholarly distinction, and stripping the word of its nuances produces a WP:ORish piece of wiki inventiveness. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, what you wrote was "The Jewish diaspora is a religious concept", which is factually wrong. Here is the ref, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=849962866&oldid=847341864, it had nothing to do with any "strong source", as there was no source when you added it. I'd also like to clearly object to something I've seen repeatedly. An editor will find a solitary source that espouses a viewpoint, and then use that source as a basis to completely rewrite an article/section based on the idea that since a single source said it, it must be in the article. Notwithstanding the fact that this source typically represents a minority/fringe opinion. Additionally, there is rarely a distinction made between "Galut" and "Jewish Diaspora" let alone "universally.", for example, the Jewish Encyclopedia and Britannica both include them together. I did find two places with different definitions for both, however it is entirely different from how the pov edits described it in this article. Encylopedia Judaica says: "The word Diaspora, from the Greek διασπορά ("dispersion"), is used in the present context for the voluntary dispersion of the Jewish people as distinct from their forced dispersion, which is treated under Galut". This is also found in the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, "Only voluntary emigration, by their analysis, truly falls under the heading of "diaspora." Forcible expulsion is more appropriately characterized by the Hebrew terms galut or golah, both referring to the state of living in exile." Neither are theological concepts. Drsmoo (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You just undid your objection, in citing

says: "The word Diaspora, from the Greek διασπορά ("dispersion"), is used in the present context for the voluntary dispersion of the Jewish people as distinct from their forced dispersion, which is treated under Galut". Menahem Stern, 'Diaspora,' Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edition, Volume 5 pp.637-643, p.637 (which shows no familiarity with any literature after 1963, i.e. 55 years ago).

Our article reads:-

TheJewish diaspora (Hebrew: Tfutza, תְּפוּצָה) or exile (Hebrew: Galut, גָּלוּת; Yiddish: Golus)

That means exactly what my edits have been trying to point out, this article confuses 'diaspora' and 'galut' which the scholarly literature distinguish as separate though related notions. Namely, 'diaspora' has different connotations from 'Galut': if you google 'galut' you get a wiki redirect to 'Diaspora', unlike the sane distinction made precisely by the Encyclopedia Judaica. The article falsely (a) regards diaspora as synonymous with galut, and a large part of the material I revised dealt with the galut, rather than with the diaspora as a historical reality of a distinct order. That is the 'mess' I allude to, of prior editors ignoring the fact that these terms are not identical, as the article's content and glosses suggest. Had you had the courtesy of waiting for me to do my edits, rather than being sucked into a stupid edit-war, you would have seen, as my later edits show, in the section on terms and definitions, that this error of definition was to be successively modified. Indeed, when you added your geophysical piece, I accepted that as an acceptable expansion covering the ambiguyity. Sheesh!

You think I don't have several scholarly sources for my definitions? I do, but can't add them while I keep getting reverted. You instead have used the collectively and anonymously edited online Encyclopedia Britannica entry, which is no more reliable than Wikipedia, that article last being edited by Surabhi Sinha, in a copy and paste job. If you want to familiarize yourself with all of the various shades of nthe religious concept of galut, which has been endlessly discussed for nearly 2000 years, read in Simon Rawidowicz, 'On the concept of Galut,'., in his ‘’State of Israel, Diaspora, and Jewish Continuity: Essays on the "ever-dying People,," UPNE, 1998 pp.96ff. At the moment, it looks like the usual scenario. I work days to introduce a few score scholarly works into a wiki article, and am immeditately swarmed by editors who revert, nag, misunderstand, object, and . .do no fucking work, other than google-scrounge a couple of shonky online encyclopedia articles, outdated or, like the Enc Brit, written by editors no more familiar with the topic than wiki editors here are -so that a meaningless blurb of patchwork composition remains the piece of shit it was before I touched it. Well done. As you will. I've interesting work to do elsewhere. I will look on amused to see how much work is done after I leave the topic. I'm betting on it dying in the water, unless some ideological eager beaver just reverts back in the bullshit I took out.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, despite the cursing, all that was added by "Surabhi Sinha" was a single link. The actual article was written by their editorial staff. Not that I care so much about that one source, but what you wrote is incorrect. And yes, Diaspora and Galut are typically conflated in reliable sources. Some sources do go into the subtle shades of difference between the two terms, but they are mostly the same. In any case, what you wrote was "The Jewish diaspora is a religious concept", which is false. It would also be false to describe Galut as a religious concept. I also find your personal account of "google scrounging" particularly ridiculous, based on the clear pattern of finding a single source with a WP:Fringe opinion and trying to throw that into the lead and redefine the commonly accepted definitions of words and concepts. In any case, the source and description of Galut are still in the article. The only difference is that now it's attributed to the author, and in the section about Galut. Rather than being the first sentence in the article as "The Jewish diaspora is a religious concept" Drsmoo (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, you added one source, whereas there were at least two that disagreed. That puts it firmly in FRINGE territory.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have several sources for the same statement. Regarding it as fringe when both of your are unfamiliar with the available scholarship is jusrt that, an index of a failure to study the topic. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you added only one, so I have no reason to believe you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Anyone familiar with the topic would know that diaspora qua galut is a religious concept. For 2,000 + years, Jewish scripture and commentary spoke of galut, not of 'diaspora' and since the redirect shows that by Jewish diaspora is to be understood 'galut', it was fair to note that in Jewish usage, the condition of exile/diaspora was discussed overwhelmingly as a religious phenomenon. Nothing astounds me like editing Wikipedia. Even the obvious is denied by people who should have some elementary ABC knowledge of their own history. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

2. In that same diff, he/she added the following passage: "A Jewish diaspora existed for several centuries before the fall of the Second Temple, and their dwelling in other countries for the most part was not a result of compulsory dislocation. " Per WP:FRINGE, this passage should have read "According to Erich Gruen, a Jewish diaspora existed several centuries before the fall of the Second Temple, and was for the most part not the result of compulsory dislocation " This has not been changed, and needs to be fixed.

• That is, frankly, stupid. There is no explanation of why a view ascribed to Erich S. Gruen. 'Gladys Rehard Wood Professor of History and Classics at the University of California, Berkeley and former president of the American Philological Association in 1992' writing on the area he specializes in, is promoting a fringe view. All that means is that as an editor, without evidence, you presume that you can judge what is mainstream or fringe in the work of an academic authority.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Because that is what we are supposed to do when only one source is provided. Duh.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If you actually familiarize yourself with the article, almost all entries have one source. You don't find that problematical, except when I follow the practice. The standard thing to do if one thinks a point needs multiple sourcing, is to request the editor to do that. Both of you have violated this elementary principle, by refusing to ask me for further details. I know the topic.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that previous editors failed to correctly frame their citations doesn't give you the greenlight to do the same.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that previous editors didn't do their job, means that people like me roll up their sleeves instead of whingeing on talk pages. I don't need a greenlight from people who have never touched the article, or troubled to fix it.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

3. Added additional quote to the above citation, but no changes to the passage itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=849963738&oldid=849962866 I will need to vet this source later.

• What's the problem? The new citation is from the pages cited from Gruen, above. Ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, adding an additional quote isn't problematic in and of itself. I never said that it was. I said that I would need to examine the source to ensure that the quotes provided accurately represent what is being said in the book (seeing as both quotes had cut-off points).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, instead of grumbling, look at the source. Do what you advise others to do, examine the source, which is linked nand immediately accessible.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And I intend to do so as soon as I'm finished with this reply. It would have been foolish of me to simply take your word for it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think in 68,000 edits I have made about a dozen transcriptions that have been questioned.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

4. Removed quote from number 3, and replaced unsourced passage "This event marked the beginning of the Roman exile, also called Edom exile. Jewish leaders and elite were exiled from the land, killed, or taken to Rome as slaves." with this "This watershed moment, the elimination of the symbolic centre of Judaism and Jewish identity constrained Jews to reformulate a new self-definition and adjust their existence to the prospect of an indefinite period of displacement. ". Seeing as he only added one citation to the latter, it should read "According to Erich Gruen....". As for the former, these sources confirm that Jews were scattered and taken as slaves from Israel in the aftermath of the two Jewish revolts, although nothing is said about the elite specifically.

Cohen, Robin. 1997. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. p. 24 London: UCL Press. "the crushing of the revolt of the Judaeans against the Romans and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman general Titus in AD 70 precisely confirmed the catastrophic tradition. Once again, Jews had been unable to sustain a national homeland and were scattered to the far corners of the world" (p. 24).

Johnson, Paul A History of the Jews "The Bar Kochba Revolt," (HarperPerennial, 1987) pp. 158–61.: Paul Johnson analyzes Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13–14 (Dio's passage cited separately) among other sources: "many Jews were also sold into slavery, so many, indeed, that the price of Jewish slaves at the slave market in Hebron sank drastically to a level no greater than that for a horse. The economic structure of the country was largely destroyed. The entire spiritual and economic life of the Palestinian Jews moved to Galilee. Jerusalem was now turned into a Roman colony with the official name Colonia Aelia Capitolina (Aelia after Hadrian's family name: P. Aelius Hadrianus; Capitolina after Jupiter Capitolinus). The Jews were forbidden on pain of death to set foot in the new Roman city. Aelia thus became a completely pagan city, no doubt with the corresponding public buildings and temples...We can...be certain that a statue of Hadrian was erected in the centre of Aelia, and this was tantamount in itself to a desecration of Jewish Jerusalem." p. 159.

Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13–14: "13 At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; 2 many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. First of these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews. 3 Severus did not venture to attack his opponents in the open at any one point, in view of their numbers and their desperation, but by intercepting small groups, thanks to the number of his soldiers and his under-officers, and by depriving them of food and shutting them up, he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush, exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived. Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. 2 Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. 3 Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health'" (para. 13–14).

Davies, William David; Finkelstein, Louis; Katz, Steven T. (1 January 1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521772488. Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hyperbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad. ... The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occurred elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion.

"Chronicon Alexandrinum," 224th Olympiad, in Münter, ib. p. 113; Jerome on Zech. xi. 5; Jer. xxxi. 15

Encyclopedia Judaica. “Bar Kokhba”. Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem.

H.H. Ben Sasson, Editor. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.

History Until 1880: Israel Pocket Library. Keter Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1973.

The Jewish Encyclopedia. “Bar Kokba and Bar Kokba War.” Funk and Wagnalls Co. London, 1902.

Josephus, War of the Jews II.8.11, II.13.7, II.14.4, II.14.5

Kantor, Morris. The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. Jason Aronson Inc., New Jersey, 1989.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5169-diaspora

Those are the sources I have offhand, although I'm sure there are more. They should be implemented.

• The above is a complete, unfocused mess, and is little more than leg-pulling. I don't know if it's worth while continuing to answer since the evidence to this point suggests you have no grasp of method, or what constitutes RS, or indeed the topic. You end by citing definitive an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 on the Diaspora by Richard Gottheil, Théodore Reinach, 112 years ago, before the advent of modern Israeli archaeology and scholarship. You add to it, as 'corroboration' a number of sources written over 30 years ago, mostly popular (Paul Johnston whose book is a popular digest rampant with clichés and errors), and primary sources you apparently got from an encyclopedia but have no familiarity with.
• Josephus, War of the Jews II.8.11, II.13.7, II.14.4, II.14.5. Primary source. One never cites these, since their figures are inflated, without references to the modern scholarly evaluation of their claims.
• "Chronicon Alexandrinum," 224th Olympiad, in Münter, ib. p. 113; Jerome on Zech. xi. 5; Jer. xxxi. 15. You really expect me to believe you went and looked up Friedrich Münter's edition from 1830?
• Kantor, Morris,The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, Jason Aronson Inc., New Jersey, 1989. You didn't consult this either. because you got the name wrong. It's Mattis Kantor, which you would have noted had you actually consulted the source, and it is a popular timeline according to some Australian rabbi's orthodox religious view. Not RS, patently.
• “Bar Kokba and Bar Kokba War.” The Jewish Encyclopedia Funk and Wagnalls Co. London, 1902. Actually that is 1906. You seriously think a Wikipedia article on the Diaspora must copy stuff from an encyclopedia written almost 120 years ago?
• History Until 1880, Israel Pocket Library. Keter Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1973. That is a popular work published 45 years ago. Not RS.
• Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson(ed.) A History of the Jewish People,' Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969. Against, you are copying and pasting. The Hebrew version was published in 1969, the English translation under a Harvard imprint came out in 1976, which would have been obvious had you actually examined the Harvard text you cite.
• We often cite sections of a book written 4 decades ago. Namely,William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, Steven T. Katz,The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge University Press 1984.

You don't appear to appreciate that this was overhauled to take in recent historiographical and archaeological work over the intervening 3 decades, and that on the Diaspora the appropriate section is now Allen Kerkeslager, Claudia Setzer, Paul Trebilco, David Goodblatt, 'The Diaspora from 66 to c.235 C.E,' in Steven T. Katz, (ed.) The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge University Press 2008 pp.53-92, and the subsequent essays by Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, 'The Uprisings in the Jewish Diaspora, 116-117' (pp.93-103), and Hanan Eshel, T he Bar kochba Revolt, 132-135,' pp.105-126

All I see here is incomprehensible screaming. And a whole host of lame, flimsy, hypocritical excuses.

Your personal views about given RS are irrelevant, as are mine.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not personal views. Read the criteria for Reliable sources. I gave you a rational set of replies, and you just chiak. A non-response.

You gave me hostile, opinionated dismissals of RS ("Paul Johnston (sic) whose book is a popular digest rampant with clichés and errors"), assumptions regarding my credibility ("You really expect me to believe you went and looked up Friedrich Münter's edition from 1830?"), and hypocritical misapplications of WP:AGE MATTERS (virtually everything else). I stand by what I said.

Well, you just wrote:'The consensus of both scholars and archaeologists is that Jews are an outgrowth of the Canaanites.' Paul Johnson's take on that is that the Canaanites were the indigenous peoples whom the Israelites invadec, conquered and turned into helots.'(1987 p.49) I could go on for several pages, including such gems as 'From Moses' day, . .rationalism was a central element in Jewish belief' (p.38) a sentence which miraculous turns a mythic figure into an historical person, contra the consensus; which retrodates 'rationalism' to the 14th century BCE, which subscribes to the view that Moses's people were Jews, when Judaism was formed several centuries after the ascribed period he is said to have lived in, and, like a genius, makes religious belief consonant with rationalism.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, you mispelled several author's names (and even the source title itself on one occasion) in your reply, so your complaints here are highly audacious.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So what's new? You don't distinguish between author's and the proper 'authors' above. It is not audacious but atrocious to misspell and therefore confuse Paul Johnston with the eminent Doctor Johnson, though to give Johnston credit I found his The Birth of the Modern an eminently interesting read. Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

5. The sources added/removed here should be vetted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850065014&oldid=850013687

• They were vetted. I checked a concordance to Thucydides and the original Greek text of the Peloponnesian War (Lib.2.27). There is no use of 'diaspora' in that source. The error is explained by Dufoix on pp.30ff., in the link I gave allowing verification. So what the fuck do you mean to imply by saying one should 'vet' a source which a simple click on the link shows is correct? Dumb, really dumb.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors misquote sources all the time, often deliberately. I asked other editors to review it since I didn't have the time to do it myself, as I was too busy writing and compiling this list.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't have the time, but composed 18 'analyses' of my edits? There is no sign here that the POV warriors who back you know the topic, have ever edited this area marginally or substantively. I have.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Because that concern was a relatively minor one, whereas I prefer to focus on bigger problems.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

6. "who to some degree argued for the acceptance of the Jewish presence outside the Land of Israel as a modern reality and an inevitability." This passage should read "a Jewish presence", not "the" Jewish presence. Although in fairness, this error predates Nishidani's arrival. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850072052&oldid=850065104

• So now I'm partially at fault for not doing what no editor, even those reverting me automatically, corrected, i.e., 'the' to 'a'. I didn't even tough that passage.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Although in fairness, this error predates Nishidani's arrival."

Try reading my comments carefully next time.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't raise the next time comments about my editing which do not regard what I edited.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to think that my list was meant for your eyes only. If so, you are mistaken.

And there won't be a next time, as this will be my last set of replies to you. My energy is better spent revamping the article than tangling with a belligerent POV crusader.14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 7. An entire paragraph was deleted here, although most of it wasn't sourced. Reliable sources for these claims do exist, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850083038&oldid=850072052

• You admit that was, as my edit summary stated, free composition. I think all editors are oblioged only to add material they have before them, from modern academic sources, which can justify, section per section, what they paraphrase. Nothing more, nothing less. There were 2 failed verification tags, generalizations about Jews living in Israel for 3,000 years before the Roman period (!!! before a Jewish nation existed) and inclusion of material in the Roman section which actually dealt with the Byzantine period, i.e. all free composition. I rewrote the text sticking strictly to the topic of the Roman period. And I didn't remove 'Jerusalem was destroyed' because the text I gave had 'Jerusalem had been left in ruins from the time of Vespasian.'

The consensus of both scholars and archaeologists is that Jews are an outgrowth of the Canaanites (who had been living there for almost 6,000 years by that point), so the claim isn't entirely wrong. And had you not removed it, I would have added citations.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong on both accounts. You don't know the topic. Canaanite covers a cultural period, not an ethnic reality, and they are attested probably around 2000 BCE at the earliest, so you are out by 4000 years, confusing them with the 'immigrant' settlers of the preceding Chalcolithic culture. It is a respectable theory to identify the formation of a specific Jewish identity to the Hasmonean period, several hundred years after the demise of Canaanite culture. If you can't recognize the scholarship alluded to here, then you shouldn't be editing this article.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"Canaanite" has been used as an ethnic term in scholarship for decades, and I am unaware of any scholar who believes the Canaanites did not stem from pre-existing cultures in the Levant. Likewise for Jews.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

8. Added unsourced claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850086373&oldid=850085299

• This is the first legitimate objection I have met with here. It was an all too brief allusion to the establishment of the academy at Yavne, and the fact that a third of the tannaim mentioned from there were descendants of the Jerusalem priestly class. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I should add that a large amount of the text results from unsourced claims, but that bothers no one here, except if I edit to fix the mess and make an elliptic remark that fails my own criteria.:)Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

9. A significant chunk of information and sourced content was removed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850086967&oldid=850086373

(a) After this failed Jewish uprising, the majority of Jews in Israel were sold as slaves, killed or forced to seek refuge outside Palestine. In addition, Hadrian encouraged non-Jews to settle the land

After the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 CE, the Romans engaged in mass executions, expulsions, and enslavement, destroying large numbers of Judean towns and forbidding Jews from settling in Jerusalem or its environs (Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.12-14)

Two paragraphs repeating the same meme. It's obligatory to fix such careless repetitiveness.

I removed that because it is unsourced, a known, and false meme. Note that curious after. It means that the gross violence of the war wasn't enough. Once it was won, Rome then set about murdering most of the survivors or driving them out of Palestine. Absolute garbage, and one removes such trash on sight.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

there was no further Jewish government or overarching legal system thereafter in Judaea

It escaped the editor's notice that Judea had been under direct Roman government rule, and legal system for nthe preceding 65 years, and that the bar Kochba revolt did not destroy a Judean government.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

; this effectively turned the expatriate Jews of the Diaspora into a permanently exiled people, deprived of their homeland.

Again, there was no interdiction on Jews remaining in or moving to Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions (taxation, discrimination, social exclusions) further alienated and marginalized remaining Jews in the Negev and Galilee and favored the settlement of culturally pagan Syro-Phoenicians and others.

All inhabitants were taxed. What 'social exclusions' mean here is unclear. The Galilee had been an object of Syro-Phoenician settlement for several hundred years. It didn't begin at that time, and indeed, Jewish expansion in the Galilee flourished.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Had you simply removed the repetition in that paragraph, you'd have a point. But that's not what you did. What you did was remove the entire paragraph and insert your own personal viewpoint about it being a "false meme" as justification. That's POV pushing. Refer back to my response under number 4.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Drop the false meme. There was no expulsion from Judea 135 CE period, that is not my own personal viewpoint it is the consensus of scholarship. I moved everything that was reproduced from the standard meme template, or was repeating what was already in the text, or which was oversourced. We do not require a dozen sources for the obvious point that Hadrian's choice of Aelia Capitolina may have been intended as a slight or insult on Jewish sensibilities. I retained that point, sourced.

You're proving my point. Good job.

10. Cite-quote partially removed, most notably the passage describing what he claims never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850095013&oldid=850094670

What's the problem? The section is the early diaspora, relating to BCE era. You can't mention Puteoli's settlement and add the Bar Kochba details in the same paragraph! I simply detached the latter material from the former, and reealborated the Bar Kochba material in the appropriate section below. Just sensible reorganization.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You chopped off the part re-affirming *the very thing* that you've been aggressively trying to deny and erase on this page, and then failed to re-add in another section. That too qualifies as POV pushing.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote the part you say I excised and did not reformulate.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"No date or origin can be assigned to the numerous Jewish settlements eventually known in the West. While some were surely founded (and many certainly greatly increased) as a result of the dispersal of Judaean Jews from the Land of Israel and their expulsion from Jerusalem after the revolt of CE 66–70 (The First Jewish–Roman War, known as the Great Revolt) and the revolt of 132–135 (the Second Jewish–Roman War, known as the Bar Kochba Revolt), it is also known that there were already many Jews living outside of the Land of Israel before the Roman imperial oppression and decidedly before the Jewish uprisings for independence and freedom from Roman rule in their homeland—and before their uprisings were crushed."The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed a blob of junk writing, salvaging the one item that was specific Puteoli Smallwood, and leaving in the lead the substance of what the editor who wrote that reduplication missed. I.e.

A Jewish diaspora existed for several centuries before the fall of the Second Temple, and their dwelling in other countries for the most part was not a result of compulsory dislocation. [5]Before the middle of the first century CE, in addition to Judea, Syria and Babylonia, large Jewish communities existed in the Roman provinces of Egypt, Cyrene and Crete and in Rome itself Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

11. Removed sourced content. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850095221&oldid=850095133

I said it was repetitive chit-chat. Editors should not keep hammering on a theme that is already adequately dealt with. I significantly expanded the Bart Kochba section with fresh sources. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

12. Removed relevant, sourced content and relocated it under a less relevant section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096013&oldid=850095801

Why is it a 'less relevant section?' Obiter dicta are not arguments.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850095801&oldid=850095221

Because those sources dealt directly with the dispersal of Jews within the Roman Empire. There was no reason to remove it from that section.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is opinionable.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

13. Obvious POV mangling. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096217&oldid=850096013

• Do you mean (a) I mangled a (pre-existing) POV or (b)in introducing new material I produced a mangled POV of my own variety? It's not obvious, since, unlike previous editors, I write on the basis of academic sources, and the POV I was contesting is one which, in the several sources, is known to be false. Stating that the POV, which no editor before me cared to challenge, or even realized was an evident fiction in scholarly terms, has been disowned is not mangling. It's ridding the article of crap, and doing so with several sources that state this is crap.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous version was neutral and encyclopedic. Your version reads as an aggressive attempt to sway readers towards a particular viewpoint (fully aware that several RS exist contradicting it - your excuses notwithstanding) while dissuading them from questioning it. That is, once again, POV pushing.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is just an assertive claim. You haven't shown this page why one version is neutral and the other POV. Most of the page was full of POV tripe, and no one recognized it as such. It wasn't problematical, until I started editing, then all of a sudden the preexisting version was 'neutral' and my sourced alterations, POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"This widespread popular belief holds that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina and that this was crucial for the establishment of the Diaspora, but historians disagree with that view. Instead, they argue that the growth of diaspora Jewish communities 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. After the revolt, the Jewish religious and cultural center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars. For the generations that followed, the destruction of the Second Temple event came to represent a fundamental insight about the Jews who had become a dispossessed and persecuted people for much of their history."

Versus

"Erich S. Gruen maintains to the contrary that focusing on the destruction of the Temple misses the point that already before this, the diaspora was well established. Compulsory dislocation of people cannot explain more than a fraction of the eventual diaspora. Avrum Ehrlich also states that already well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, more Jews lived in the Diaspora than in Israel. According to Israel Yuval, the Babylonian captivity created a promise of return in the Jewish consciousness which had the effect of enhancing the Jewish self-perception of Exile after the destruction of the Second Temple, albeit their dispersion was due to an array of non-exilic factors."

I don't know how anyone can honestly say that the former is more neutral than the latter. This is why I rarely bother with Wikipedia anymore.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you are familiar with Jewish history or ancient history, it's not hard to observe that the first passage is not neutral, unless by 'neutral' you mean to argue that there was no such thing as voluntary emigration into the diaspora but that the only Jews who lived abroad did so as a result of (a) Assyrian destruction of Israel, (b) the Babylonian destruction of Judah, (c) the Roman destruction of Judea, and the (d) subsequent rule of Christians and Muslims. It is neutral to say no Jew ever left Palestine except in circumstances of military compulsion. Rubbish.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

14. Deleted sourced material. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096331&oldid=850096217

• Did you examine that source or what it was cited for? I.e.

Although some Jews maintained their presence in Syria-Palestine, they became a disposed and dispersed people.

Marvin Petty, A New York college teacher’s Brief History of the World p.8 is not RS for anything, esp when the area alluded to is amply covered by specialist scholarship (b)when the comment drawn is comically solecistic or silly and (c) repeats a statement already made several times in the text. It's a stupid sentence grammatically and logically because, let me parse it for you,

some Jews . .became a disposed and dispersed people

They did so while 'maintaining their presence in their homeland,

where they were 'disposed'. 'Disposed' to do what?

That's one possible meaning, and is nonsense. The editor who wrote it clearly might have intended something else, but his sentence doesn't say it.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The source was Marvin Perry's "Western Civilization: A Brief History, Volume I: To 1789 By Marvin Perry P:87", and it is WP:RS. At least as far as I can tell.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't RS, because we have hundreds of academic papers and books on this by tenured scholars who specialize in this history. It is a generalization, and as I noted, the paraphrasing language is dumb, stupid.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My comments were about the source, not the passage attributed to it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

15. Deleted entire section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096428&oldid=850096331 He seemingly restored it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096599&oldid=850096428

• I.e. I shiftged one section elsewhere without tampering with it. So? Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

16. Changed name of section, most notably removing the "dispersal" part. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850096686&oldid=850096599

• Um, it is what editors do, i.e. change section names to better fit the content. The section is about the demographics of the Jewish Diaspora, not about the process of dispersion, which is dealt with throughout the article. Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

17. Removed sourced content. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850098694&oldid=850098114

• I removed a book review in the NYTs. The material elided is already on that page, from prior edits, namely in the lead where I wrote

the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem. This watershed moment, the elimination of the symbolic centre of Judaism and Jewish identity constrained many Jews to reformulate a new self-definition and adjust their existence to the prospect of an indefinite period of displacement

I.e. I removed another piece of reduplication. As to the Babylonian shift, that is something well worth expansion, but given the flurry of sudden interest in the topic as I began to rewrite it, by several editors who don't appear to know much about the topic, and everything about my POV, I'm not being given any time to work my way systematically through this and put the whole text on a firm modern scholarly footing.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You removed the "dispossession" part, even though it is attested in numerous RS. I posted some of them here, and you removed several others. Alleging that I don't know enough about a topic that I've been studying for the better part of 2 decades doesn't change that.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've been a classical scholar for nigh on 50 years, and have read the major sources for these events in the original languages. Your comments show a total unfamiliarity with normal scholarly editing procedures. I.e. you don't cite outdated books when every year scores of papers by cutting edge researchers exist for the topic. You don't cite primary sources except through a learned secondary source of recent vintage that cites and analyses them. In many pages Josephus says 1.1 million mostly Jews, were killed in the siege of Jerusalem. Many wiki articles cite that to Josephus without telling the reader that Josephus's figure for Jerusalem's Passover population is equal to the accepted figure for the total population of Palestine at that time, and therefore is patent hyperbole. Mass carnage there was, but nothing of that order. Idem with the figure of 220,000 Greeks killed in Cyrenaica and 240,000 in Cyprus, 460,000 Roman citizens all told putatively slaughtered by Jews, something attributed to Dio Cassius (whom wiki cites as a reliable primary source in several articles), notwithstanding the fact that the text of Dio Cassius shows traces of meddling by his epitomizing editor, Xiphilinus and such exaggerations in this case look distinctly anti-Semitic. Editors who use him as a primary source don't know that, but cherrypick regardless of whether the passage was by Dio Cassius or his editor. I could go on for ages about the stupidity of primary sourcing of articles on ancient history articles in wikipedia. But I see it is pointless. You've studied it personally for some decades, and think differently from the competent scholarly community that analyses it.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And who says they are outdated? You? And as for the rest, I did provide that. And you responded with an array of inane excuses.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

They are no longer cited in contemporary scholarly literature, which is the only thing, besides tea, a fag and crumpets, I care for.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

18. Geographical dispersion, migration, and re-settlement works better. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_diaspora&diff=850098886&oldid=850098694

• For whom. I did a google books search on usage before that change, and the results were

Jewish migration+Middle Ages 59,000 results

Jewish dispersion+Middle Ages 24,700 results

So your suggestion is just personal preference, subjective, and has no bearing on my edit.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Because the forced dispersal of Jews did happen (as numerous sources attest), although you are hellbent on denying it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Who denied forced dispersion? I am not hellbent on anything. I am correcting a meme all contemporary ('Jewish' or non) specialists on these topics know to be rubbish. The diaspora had formative elements of forced dislocation (galut), and voluntary emigration (diaspora), and to melt down the distinction and say it was all forced dispersion (galut) is to fly in the face of the modern scholarly consensus, in order to buttress what Salo Wittmayer Baron dismissed as the 'lachrymose conception of Jewish history'. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You did. Several times. Go back and read your own comments.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Cite them, or go to an optometrist.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is what I was able to catch, although I believe the remainder of his edits should be vetted regardless.

@Oncenawhile, there is a difference between employing multiple perspectives and allowing recalcitrant agenda driven editors to run amok. Likewise, there is a difference between focusing on a given topic and plastering your POV all over your user page and then proceeding to make a series of problematic edits pertaining to the object of your derision. If I decked out my page with Zionist paraphenalia, are you saying you'd have no problem with me editing Palestinian-related topics?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If you actually look at my work I have created a 1000 articles+ on a large range of topic, most of which have nothing to do with this area.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit history shows an overwhelming focus on the I/P conflict and Jewish topics, and your edits on those articles are often just as problematic as (if not worse than) your edits here. That's without going into the views expressed on your profile page.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you are a POV warrior, make visibly mendacious assertions (so you' ve go ne through 68,000 edits to arrive at that conclusion?) and know nothing of my edit history, not to speak of the topic under discussion. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your political views are plastered all over your page and your edit history shows an overwhelming focus on I/P, so whatever contributions you made several years back are neither here nor there.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I.e. you haven't any familiarity with my editing record. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with The Human Trumpet Solo. If the inverse were truth, would we not be having the same discussion? Akyoyo94 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Judicially, what the above represents is a judgement grounded on (a) the assumption that a plaintiff's accusation of guilt (bias) is correct, before hearing the defendant and then (b) backing the confirming judgement by listing all my edits, as though the constituted ipso facto proof of bias, without any rational analysis of each item of evidence. I'll deal with it, nonetheless as if it were a serious set of objections.

You've wasted several of my hours. You didn't examine anything, and came up with 2 minor points in 18 evaluations. Please note that, of the objecting editors, there is no sign of any work on the topic, nor talk page responsiveness. Just POV shouting. At least you did some work, and enabled me to make two tweaks from 18 objections. Please, read broadly on the topic, rather than study my ostensible POV with hectic intensity. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Observation on a strange occurrence： The three editors who have turned up here to attack Nishidani share similar characteristics - they all have only 300-900 edits, yet have had accounts open for 8-12 years, which have lain mostly dormant since then (see [1][2][3]). 90% of Bob’s edits relate to the Gaza Freedom flotillas, around 20% of Human Trumpet Solo’s edits are to their own user page, and the above comment is Akyoyo’s first edit in over 7 years. Why all turn up on this usually quiet talk page at the same time? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this what happens every time strongly opinionated editors are challenged? Conspiracy theories?

Regardless, this article is about to receive a massive overhaul. I will address Nishidani's responses in the meantime. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, even if it appears you have neglected the courtesy of answering my comments on your adventitious 'criticisms' above. Keep this in mind:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent

Which means that the decades, hundred-years- old material you mentioned is far from 'optimal', while the thorough deployment of the most recent scholarly results, is how articles are supposed to be written. That is, so far, what you have objected to, and it contradicts best practice.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Diaspora as a religious concept

There are certainly some minor aspects of a religious nature to the diaspora, but it is no more it's primary focus, then some religious people claiming a hurricane punished the gays. No one would refer to such a hurricane as a religious concept. And overall, by referring it a "religious concept" rather than a factual historical event seems intended to put doubts that it ever happened at all.

Comments on religious aspects or thoughts regarding the Diaspora _might_ belong somewhere in the article, but I don't believe they merit a spot in the very first sentence.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A significant amount of information and reliable sources were plucked out of the article yesterday, and with little to no justification. That is something I intend to fix later on today, assuming no one else gets to it first.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The text was full of repetition and poorly organized. The article's various sections were apparently edited without editors examining the whole text, with the result of achronological reduplications everywhere. There was severe oversourcing of things no one in their right minds would contest, i.e. that the ban on circumcised Jews visiting Jerusalem took place in the time of Hadrian. So me sources were plainly not good RS for an historical article whose themes are minutely covered by scholarship,There was a lot of free contrafactual composition, hammering home an untruth, that of 'expulsion'. Quite a bit of material dealt not with the diaspora, but the history of Israel/Palestine in terms of one long history of dispossession, as opposed to subordination to imperial empires, which was the fate of all ancient nationalities. The sum effect appears to have been to create the impression of some peculiar situation there, related to anti-Semitism, in a confused and rhetorical fashion. In other words, this failed the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia. If you wish to list the sources you think were dropped unfairly, by all means do so here, and I will explain why I made those elisions. I may indeed, in the reorganization, have missed something, but the article before I edited it, was unreadable. What the article needs is development of descriptions of Jews in the diaspora. So far we have repetitious general descriptions of the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrachi, Karaite, Yemeni etc. populations, but almost nothing on their distinctive diasporic cultures. Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The galut/diaspora, per numerous sources, refers to two distinct things, the fact of Jews living outside Israel/Palestine throughout the world and the theory that this is the result of a divine or Roman punishment, an exile imposed. The page was cleaned up yesterday to clarify this. Your erasure has messed it up.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you one of many examples still remaining which are pure distortions of Jewish history in order to explain diaspora as invariably driven by foreign massacres.

after the Siege of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, when the Hasmonean kingdom became a protectorate of Rome, emigration intensified.

At sight, one knows this is sheer prevarication, but I left it in for the while. Any student should know that in the preceding period of Alexander Jannaeus's reign (i.e. decades beforehand), there was, because of his treatment of Palestine's internal population, notable in-migration north fro m Judea towards the Galilee, and externally by numerous dissidents to Egypt and Damascus. The latter diaspora effect was purely a consequence of internal policies, not external deportations. Notwithstanding this, some editor has jumped over this and only writes of events after 63BCE, because there Rome can be blamed. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

the land was called Judea at the time the name palestine wasn't bestowed on the land until Hadrian did that after the bar kochba revolt in 135 ce עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Read at least the lead on Judea. You aree confusing the southern area with the region as a whole.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

‎Jonney2000

Israel Bartal contends that Shlomo Sand is incorrect in ascribing this view to most Jewish study scholars, instead arguing that this view is negligible among serious Jewish study scholars

In that section of his book, Sand states that it is a popular view, and cites numerous Israeli and Zionist scholars contesting it as a 'myth'. Therefore the point made by Bartal is odd, and it is worth trying to find where in his book he asserts, against his own evidence, that most Jewish study scholars embrace the myth. All I can find is the following sum-up of his argument, which seems to contradict Bartal's inference.The following passage comes straight after an analysis of two major Zionist scholars who mentioned this period without ever touching on expulsion, so that, Sand states, the public imagination was left unaware of the fact serious scholarship did not support the myth.:-

Ther historical reality of the expulsion was thus accepted as self-evident -not discussed and never doubted. Every historian knew that the myth combining destruction and expulsion was very much alive in the mind of the public, having derived from a religious tradition and become firmly rooted in secular consciousness. In the popular discourse, as in the political statements and the educational system, the expulsion of the people of Israel after the fall of the kingdom was carved in stone. Most intelligent scholars evaded their dubious area with professional elegance; here and there, as though unwittingly, they supplemented their writings with alternative explanations of the prolonged exile.' Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, Verso 2009 pp.129ff. p.143

In short Sand says that most scholars knew it, but didn't do their work of clarifying to the popular Jewish constituency that the meme was a myth. They (Jewish scholars) knew it was a myth, but refrained from fussing about it, while themselves not reproducing it in their work, a totally different view from the one Bartal here ascribes to him.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, feedback please.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

°(2) restore original text from a year ago before it was damaged I.e. this means putting in a section related to events from 400 BCE down to the beginning of the first millenium things that don't relate to 'early diaspora populations as the following.

Early diaspora populations

The military defeats of the Jews in Judaea in 70 CE and again in 135 CE would swell the Diaspora population while simultaneously reducing the Jewish population in Palestine.

I had shifted this to its proper chronological section, i.e.

Roman destruction of Judea

The military defeats of the Jews in Judaea in 70 CE and again in 135 CE, with thousands sold into slavery, meant a drop in Palestine's Jewish population was balanced by a rise in Diaspora numbers. These slaves and their children were eventually manumitted and joined local free communities.

Nothing was 'damaged'. All Jonney's edit did here was reduplicate information I had shifted below,(and expanded per source) without noticing that the information was conserved. The material was reorganized chronologically, to overcome the dispersion of unrelated details all over the place. And my text is closer to the source which does not state 'swell' in the defective rewrite of Smallwood.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has got back to me on this, I am restoring the two edits I wrote and which were challenged, for the reasons given above.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the accentuation of Judaism as a religious concept rather than an ethic or national one is a well-documented academic practice with anti-Zionist roots. For example, in Marc Gribetz's essay When the Zionist Idea Came to Beirut, a detailed analysis is given of the way The Zionist Idea, a book that explains the various forms of Zionism and describes their origins, is translated into Arabic by the Research Center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This translation omits numerous references to European nationalism and its effect on the Jewish diaspora in Europe, identifies secular Zionist Theodor Herzl as a believer in "extreme religious mysticism," and obfuscates the distinctions between Religious Zionism and its many secular counterparts. In keeping with WP:NPOV, both sides of this debate should be presented and explained in detail. Oobooglunk (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The standard 19th century orthodox view was that Judaism is a religious not a national concept, and opposition to the secular ideology of Zionism was fiercely orthodox from the 1890s onwards, down to the establishment of Israel. The PLO etc has nothing to do with this, nor does this article.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate paragraph

The paragraph in the Introduction that starts "During the Middle Ages..." is a word-for-word copy of the introductory paragraph in the subsection Post-Roman period Jewish populations. (It needs citations too)

It may need to summarized, but should not be removed because the WP:LEAD section is supposed to a summary of the article. The citations should be in that subsection. Editor2020 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Roman Diaspora in Eastern Mediterranean

I came to this page to satisfy a few questions for myself about the Pre-Roman Jewish Diaspora in the Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Greek islands, Greek mainland).

1. What motivated the Jews to leave Israel or Mesopotamia in the post-Captivity, pre-Roman period?
2. Were Jewish expatriate communities unique, or at least unusual? Or were expatriate communities from other cultures in the Mediterranean common?
3. Were expatriate communities in the Eastern Mediterranean primarily from the Babylonian region, from Israel, or both?
4. What enabled Jews to maintain cultural cohesiveness during this period?
5. What relationship, if any, did the pre-Roman Diaspora have to the Levantine culture we call "Phoenician"?

I didn't find much of what I was looking for in this article. I'm going to try to find more information from other sources and see if I can bring that into this article, or into a new one about this particular period. --ESP (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Needs citations

The second and third paragraphs of this article have no citations. Where is this information sourced from? RebeccaHUNY (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)RebeccaHUNY

See MOS:LEADCITE for the reason. Editor2020 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

too few citations in intro section

There are two solid paragraphs without a single citation in the introduction. Including on any of the several very specific dates, most of which are in years with 4 significant digits. nhinchey (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADCITE. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the term "Yiddish"

Galut and Golus are both Hebrew; one is Sephardic pronunciation, the other is Ashkenazi. Both are valid as pronunciations of Hebrew. This is a recurring problem with Wikipedia. For instance: shabbat shabbos. [I might add that it's unclear why tau is pronounced in so many different ways. It's pronounced as "f" in Judeo-Provençal. It can't be assumed it's from the German language. Anyway the Ashkenazi pronunciation is a fact of Hebrew liturgy that doesn't come from Yiddish; rather when there is a Hebrew word used in Yiddish that pronunciation is used. So I'm hoping one of the editors will consider this and make the change.]

Non-sentences

"This widespread popular belief holds that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina and that this was crucial for the establishment of the Diaspora,[41] Israel Bartal contends that Shlomo Sand is incorrect in ascribing this view to most Jewish study scholars,[42] instead arguing that this view is negligible among serious Jewish study scholars." This would make sense if split at the first comma.

"Arguing that the growth of diaspora Jewish communities 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." Who is saying this and what is the source? Keith McClary (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed those (the Bartal source is the source). --Dailycare (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mizrahi Jews

Who wrote this flawed article, giving the Jewish population only two divisions: the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim? So what happened to the original third: the Mizrahi (Eastern) Jews--you know, the original Jews in the Middle East, from the Holy Land to the depth of Central Asia and India?? The Mizrahi are NOT Arabs nor Spanish or Italian. They are the original Middle Eastern Jews, spread around voluntarily in the Persian Empire, and then the Abbasid Empire to all over the Middle East. AND there is no way to correct this obscene error, because there is no way to edit and fix this travesty!!! To drive home this point, as of 2005, 61% of Israeli Jews were of full or partial Mizrahi ancestry !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:8B32:223:12FF:FE20:7BC7 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of sources?

Yea the sources for this article are few and far between and they make some pretty outlandish claims, sometimes multiple per paragraph and there is only a source about every other paragraph, if that. I've seen articles where there is a source or a citation needed every sentence. And they are on far less controversial topics than this article. Not to mention how this article at several points, presents information which is contradictory to several other articles on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivar the Homelss (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Detroit to metropolitan ranking

Can’t edit because it’s protected, but metro Detroit should be ranked with 116,000 Jewish residents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Metro_Detroit#Background_information Jhs2419 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Source? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

'Wholesale massacres' in 115 BCE or 115-17 CE ?

The following formulation is found in this article (just before the section on the Roman Era):

"To judge by the accounts of wholesale massacres in 115 BCE, the number of Jewish residents in Cyrenaica, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia was also large."

I have tried in vain to find any reference (excluding verbatim and unsourced copies of the sentence above) to massacres in 115 BCE, and have concluded that what is meant must be the massacres during the Kitos War, in which case the date should be 115-117 CE (not BCE).

Since I have no special knowledge of Jewish history and am aware that my conclusion above may be mistaken, I am not actually making this edit myself, but hope that someone with more knowledge will confirm (or disconfirm) my conclusion. In any case, the passage needs to be sourced, and it should be explained in the text what massacre is alluded to. Since the quote is being dispersed all over the internet, I would suggest that it be corrected and/or sourced as quickly as possible, so as to avoid further confusion.

Filursiax (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Filursiax, you are correct. The revolts and possible killings in these early Roman diasporas are all related to the Jewish revolts of the Roman period, from 66 CE to 135 CE, as you point out. This misleading mistake should be corrected ASAP. Thanks for pointing it out. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:warshy. Is there any way I can alert an authorized editor to do the job? Filursiax (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Filursiax, I have corrected the date and adjusted the language of the entire sentence a bit so it makes a little bit more sense, in the context where it is right now. But I also realized, in doing that, that that whole paragraph is still not properly referenced at all. When someone gets to the point of being able to properly reference it, that opening sentence should probably be moved to the subsequent historical period, the Roman period, anyhow. Thanks for pointing it out. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should an article on the Jewish diaspora be interpreted as "Arab–Israeli conflict-related"?

Why not just declare all of Judaism to be Arab-Israeli conflict-related? This is extremely antisemitic. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, not even surprised here. Jews = enemies of Palestine. That’s the narrative. Doesn’t even matter if they have never even lived in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.100.193.18 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Some portions of the page are ARBPIA-related such as the portions regarding Zionism. Since the last ArbCom ruling, there is the possibility of applying ARBPIA restrictions to just those parts of articles related to ARBPIA while leaving the other parts unrestricted. I have changed the notice on this page and the editnotice on the article accordingly. Zero^talk 01:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarajevo

In the wp article on Sarajevo, there is this paragraph:

• Following the expulsion of Jews from Spain at the end of the 15th century, and the invitation from the Ottoman Empire to resettle their population, Sephardic Jews arrived in Sarajevo, which over time would become a leading center of Sephardic culture and the Ladino language. Though relatively small in size, a Jewish quarter would develop over several blocks in Baščaršija.

But there is no mention of Sarajevo in this article. Is that because the absolute size of that group?--Nick Barnett (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Instead of writing "Semitic" (which is a lingual term), write Israelites or Judahites from Lachish... below the image! Honest-Critique (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Add connections to Romaniote Community

Seems like there is a missing Jewish Community in this article. I think the Romaniote Jews of Greece should be included as appropriate. Please see this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romaniote_Jews

Thanks.

Jxt0 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Needlessly confusing mixture of "diaspora", "exile", and "galut"

This is an English Wikipedia page. In English, "diaspora" means the dispersion of Jewish people from Israel, "Exile" (in this context) means the Babylonian captivity, and "Galut" means the forced exile of Jews (not limited to the Babylonian captivity). So in terms of breadth, diaspora > Galut > Exile.

The lede incorrectly defines "diaspora" and "exile" as having equivalent meanings ("the dispersion of Israelites or Jews out of their ancestral homeland"), ignoring the fact that, in common modern usage, "diaspora" includes voluntary movements and "galut"/"exile" do not.

I suggest creating a separate page for "galut" and moving the linguistic controversies, etc. to that page. Possibly it could be merged with the page for Golah, where it is already discussed. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Dating error

"Before the middle of the first century CE, in addition to Judea, Syria and Babylonia, large Jewish communities existed in the Roman provinces of Syria Palaestina, Egypt, Crete and"

---

There was no Syria Palaestina until 135 when Hadrian created it. It was only Judea. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. The sentence already starts with "Judea, Syria...", so adding "Syria Palaestina" to it didn't make sense to begin with... Should be OK now. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 23:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why isn’t there a mention of jews conversion to christianity and islam ?

The article talks about minority muslim and christian groups immigrating to palestine but never talks about jewish conversions to islam and christianity, it’s no secret that jews converted to islam and christianity and became jews no more

Shouldn’t these fact be included to complement the factors talking about how jews become a minority ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

in the "Destruction of Judea" segment it says "...Jewish captives from Judea sold into slavery and an increase in voluntary Jewish emigration from Judea as a result of the wars" the term "voluntary emigration" is not correct, as they were fleeing from a war, supposedly fearing for their lives or from becoming enslaved. We call people fleeing from war refugees, not voluntary migrants. Thewildshoe (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Unclear terminology

"It has been argued that the archaeological evidence is suggestive of a Roman genocide taking place during the Second revolt.[68] "

Suggest changing "Second" to "Bar Khokba" as this would be clearer and less ambiguous

--Phytographer (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also "Roman genocide" is wrong. If used like this it's unclear if a genocide of Romans during the revolt is meant. It should be "genocide" or "genocide of jews". 1.55.233.188 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

The third paragraph of the introduction has a link for [[Common Era|BCE]]. This acronym's first appearance, one paragraph earlier, is unlinked. This doesn't make sense; please move the link to the second paragraph. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023 (2)

In the phrase "in the diaspora in 117 CE.," and the phrase "second century C.E.," please remove the full stops; "CE" is the form used throughout the rest of the article. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Jerusalem had been left in ruins from the time of Vespasian. Sixty years later, Hadrian, who had been instrumental in the expulsion from Palestine of Marcius Turbo after his bloody repression of Jews in the diaspora in 117 CE,[53] on visiting the area of Iudaea, decided to rebuilt the city in 130 CE, and

Change Iudaea to Judaea and change rebuilt to rebuild. John34engineer (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: @John34engineer Changed rebuilt to rebuild but I think Iudaea is right. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not clear if Rome changed the name of Israel

This article is not clear or explicit about the change of the name of Israel to Syria_Palaestina. This is an important issue for the clarity of history. It's key to avoid writing the history only from the side of Rome while obscuring the side of the Israelites. This sentence lacks this part of the history:

"After four years of devastating warfare, the uprising was suppressed, and Jews were forbidden access to Jerusalem."

The improvement:

"After four years of devastating warfare, the uprising was suppressed, the name of the country of the Jews was changed to Syria Palestina, and Jews were forbidden access to Jerusalem." Avanto (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a Roman Province, and the name changed around about the time of the founding of the new colony of Aelia Capitolina, although the dating of when these name changes occurred is murky. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Remove the line mentioning Daniel Boyarin. Daniel Boyarin is used in this article as if he is a known entity who speaks for all Jews, but in fact he is a radical whose views are hotly contested and he does not speak on behalf of the majority of Jews. His definition of "diaspora" is unique to him and a small subset of Jews, and using it in this article tokenized a fringe Jewish view as if it is mainstream. The mention of his view should be completely removed. 2600:1700:7C16:A810:1DA1:3C9D:41D2:E050 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023 (2)

Change "Daniel Boyarin defines diaspora as a state where people have a dual cultural allegiance, productive of a double consciousness, and in this sense a cultural condition not premised on any particular history, as opposed to galut, which is more descriptive of an existential situation, that properly of exile, conveying a particular psychological outlook.[13]"

to " " 2600:1700:7C16:A810:1DA1:3C9D:41D2:E050 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)