Talk:Timeline of Jewish history
|WikiProject Jewish history||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
- 1 Periodization
- 2 Jewish History vs Israel History
- 3 Todo list
- 4 Spanish Inquisition
- 5 Ha-Shoah
- 6 More todo, lack of context, authority games
- 7 Former Poland, former Russian Empire
- 8 See also
- 9 Poland, Catholic Church, the Pope & Jewish history
- 10 announcing policy proposal
- 11 Post Biblical-history
- 12 Who to mention
- 13 Founding of the Soviet Union
- 14 Use Jewish calendar?
- 15 711
"Also, I've devided the history by centuries. Perhaps it would be better to use historical periodization. Humus sapiens 00:16, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
- Good idea. Any thoughts on what periods? Some landmarks to divide eras might include:
- Expulsion from Judea
- Fall of Western Roman Empire
- First Crusade c1087
- Expulsion from Spain 1492
- Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment)
- End of USSR
Nomist 23:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jewish History vs Israel History
This article is very interesting - lots of great trivia. I can't wait until it's more fleshed out in the older ages. However - while the creation of the State of Israel has great significance to Jewish History, I think that many of the entries are of political interest, not Jewish interest. There is a real distinction between Judaism and Israel.
- 2001 Election of Ariel Sharon as Israel's Prime Minister.
- 1999 Ehud Barak elected Prime Minister of Israel.
- 1994 Oct. 26. Israel and Jordan sign an official peace treaty. Israel cedes a small amount of contested land to Jordan, and the countries open official diplomatic relations, with open borders and free trade.
This belongs in a list of History of Israel. -- SSherris 23:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- True. Maybe there could be a link to an Israeli timeline from 1948 onwards, leaving this page to focus on issues affecting non-Israeli Jews? Nomist 23:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Danny points our things that need to be corrected or addressed:
- Muslim Conquest continued till 1900? Says who?
- Persian Period?
- Holocaust started in 1941? (Man, I just spent the whole day lecturing on the Warsaw Ghetto and apparently I got my dates wrong).
- Vis a vis Holocaust, has that erased from history Yiddish culture? The Bund? Dubnow? Jewish Autonomists? Are Zionism and various American religious variations the only expressions of Jewish culture worth documenting?
- The Venice Ghetto (first mentioned in 1653--hey, that's where the word ghetto came from)
- Va'ad Arba Aratzot is where?
- Reish Galuta is where?
- Did the Spanish Inquisition really end in 1492? Wow, so there were no Marranos?
- Jewish settlement in New Amsterdam, Brazil, etc.
- Ofra Haza? Really now! (And I was at the AIDS protest that year in Tel Aviv.)
- Kishinev was a pogrom. Kielce was a pogrom. Crown Heights was not a pogrom.
- Black Death? Effect of the Crusades on European Jewry?
- etc., etc.
As a matter of detail, the Spanish Inquisition ended in the very early 19th Century when Napolean got involved with the Iberian Peninsula. Was it 1805? Round about then, at any rate. But it was a shadow of its former self well before that, and seeing as the Jews were expelled in 1492 (or so I gather from the above), what is the relevance anyway? Tannin
- Relevance is twofold: First, the Jews in Spain suffered considerably from the Inquisition long before the expulsion. There were periods of mass forced conversion, yet though they were forced and the conversions were a matter of political expediency, the conversos were not allowed to return to the Jewish religion under pain of death. At the time, conversos formed a distinct class in Spanish society, constantly under suspicion, constantly under threat from any rival, who would claim that they secretly practice Jewish rituals and denounce them to the Inquisition, whether the allegations were true or not. This was a widespread practice, and even conversos among the nobility were not immune to it. There is even some evidence that Torquemada's grandmother was Jewish--want some insight into his attacks on Jews? Furthermore, not all Jews left Spain. Many ostensibly converted and remained subject to the Inquisition throughout the sixteenth century. Then there is the Portuguese expulsion (1495)--Spinoza's family got to Amsterdam that way, and the New World Inquisitions--Jews were fleeing there too. Diaz reports cases of Jews among Cortes's army being burned at the stake. In Brazil, the Recife inquisition was so bad that the Jews moved north, all the way to New York, where they established what is now the biggest Jewish community in the world. And this is just a little bit on events that occurred before and after the dates given for the Inquisition. Danny 14:42 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
RK, I will just take one date, 1941, and try and see where you are coming from.
- Start of Nuremberg Laws: 1935
- Kristallnacht: Nov. 9, 1938
- World War II: Sept. 1, 1939
- Warsaw Ghetto: Oct. 14, 1940
- Attack on Soviet Union (leading to Operation Reinhard): June 22, 1941
- Wannsee: Jan. 24 1942
If you want discriminatory measures, go with Nuremberg (I am ignoring the shop boycott of '33); if you want violence and death, about 100 Jews were killed in Kristallnacht (or did they not die in the Holocaust); if you want the attack on the largest Jewish community, go with the start of World War II or the Ghetto decree; If you want the formal decision on a final solution, go with Wannsee. Why are you picking 1941? Danny
- That is when the large-scale systematic mass-murder of the Jews began in earnest. But I'm not wedded to this date. Precedents may well be just as important, or even more so! Feel free to change it. Or feel free to change anything, seriously. RK
I just looked at the article and I think like most Wikipedia articles it has some good elements and much potential, but needs work. I do not say this to offend anyone, rather I mean to start with a point I think everyone would agree with.
I am troubled to see a vituperative argument develop between RK and Danny. I do not want to get involved, except to say that I personally would like to see this turn into a good article, and I think both Danny and RK have things to contribute, so I would hate to see them spend time arguing.
RK, I think it is pretty clear when Danny write "Persian Period?" and "Black Death?" that he is asking why these periods and events have not been included in the time-line. RK, I honestly do not believe you need to take any of these remarks personally, or accuse Danny of being a vandal.
Danny, if you feel important elements are missing, why don't you just put them in? If you feel there are errors, why not just change them? Why not replace "1941 -- Holocaust" with your more detailed and nuanced portion of chronology?
I can see two reasons for Danny's approach and although I do not mean to speak for him -- and I know he will correct me -- what I think is going on does get at some basic Wikipedia issues. It is possible that Danny has a principled objection to this page and does not want to be involved with it, and in fact wants other readers of Wikipedia to know that this page suffers from some fundamental misconception. RK, I would not agree with Danny if this is the case. But I would understand him. There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia I think are crap, and there must be some venue for people to express. dissent. I would object, unconditionally, to massive deletion of content. But I do think it is perfectly reasonable to register strong objection in the "talk" pages -- simply to communicate to ordinary readers that there are differences of opinion.
But I can see an entirely other reason for Danny's comments on these pages. Whenever we develop new pages, wew are not only developing the content of a page, we are developing an idea of what the page should be about. Pages seldom get too long (Irish potato famine is one example, though) but that is because people have clear ideas of what does and does not belong. Danny may have been asking about the Persian Period and the Black Death in order to invite from RK and others some open discussion of what the parameters of the article should be. This makes perfect sense and it is precisely what the talk pages are for. After all, depending on what I know Danny will observe is an idelogical position, Jewish history stretches over 4000 years. That would be one hell of a time line! Obviously we will not include everything. I am not sure Danny was being sarcastic, I think he was raising a good question about what are the ideal principles of inclusion and exclusion although perhaps raising these questions in a too-abbreviated fashion (which, long-winded as I am, I sort of envy).
Most people I know think history is very straightforward. I believe that in fact it is very complex. RK's contributions to this article are valuable, but even he recognizes -- he has stated this clearly -- that he understands that it needs a lot of work. I hope that RK is just as willing to recognize that some of this work will take place on the talk page, and not just on the article page itself. And I hope that Danny's contributions to this page were meant to be constructive and to invite some productive discussion of what ought and ought not be included in an article of this sort -- which, for what it is worth, is how I read Danny's contributions (in their current form). Slrubenstein
Slr, thank you for you balanced and reasonable analysis of the situation. To clarify, I did not erase the page but moved it to the Talk section, followed by a brief list of immediate problems that came to mind. Like you say, history is a complex subject--Jewish history is especially complex because of its length and the personal attachment so many people feel toward it.
That being said, I do not reject the idea of a historical timeline. As someone with training in history and who still works in history (guess that makes me a historian), I see how it can be useful. Like you point out though, there are several issues that should be considered. What should be included? What should not be included? Are we discussing trends, phenomena, or persons? Are we limiting ourselves to a particular area? A particular school of thought? I've also read the books in the handy dandy biography. I even know/knew some of the authors. Personally, I prefer primary sources, but whatever.
My idea of moving it here was so that it can be worked on piece by piece, bit by bit, covering the various periods, as a cooperative effort. IZAK also made some contributions--I have problems with most of them, but I still believe that his voice should be heard in this piece too. This way it could be worked on section by section, piece by piece, corrected, amended, improved, etc. As RK admits, there were mistakes in the article. These should be corrected.
I am not impressed with argument by authority. I can do that too, and I have plenty of peers who would be happy to do me the favor. I have actually tried emailing David Levene at Durham to hear his take on the article, but unfortunately, the email keeps bouncing back. Some other peers I showed it to as it stands simply want to know why I bother wasting my time with bullshit.
I am though, because I believe in Wikipedia. Why don't we start reviewing the piece with two questions.
- Where should the article begin? I side with IZAK on this one, regardless of what I think of biblical narratives. That era is important and formative.
- How can we best incorporate the idea of the ghetto. Ghettoes existed for a very long time, though the first time they are referred to as such is a letter dating 1653 from Venice. It is the first known account of the word being used.
We can carry on from there. Maybe this can reflect the complexity of history after all. Danny 21:11 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- RK, I think you are complimenting or trying to compliment me, but to be honest I do not think I am a very humble person. Ido, however, strive to follow the maxim, "There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing." By the way, I certainly do not consider myself especially wise (and believe me, this is in no way false modesty). I am, however, old enough to have learned the wisdom in another maxim, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I do not mean to patronize you or anyone else reading this, and do apologize if I have, Slrubenstein
- Don't worry. You aren't being patronizing. RK
Without in any way disparaging the work of RK and other contributors, I have one major problem with this article: lack of context. For example, the entry for Spanish Inquisition has no information whatsoever about why this is important. My solution to this problem involves what I think is a pretty straightforward proposal concerning the purpose of this article, and I make it now only because I don't think there has been much discussion of the point of this article. I think the main purpose should be as a way of organizing links to other wikipedia articles (obviously it would be the task of those articles to provide all the context that is necessarily missing from a time-line.) My proposal has two implications: first, that we should try to make an entry for any and all articles bearing on Jewish history. Second, to generate new article topics. For example, I have not yet checked to see if there is an article on the Inquisition; if for some reason there isn't, the fact that someone thought it was important to include the topic in this timeline should be seen as an invitation to others to write such an article. That is, all elements of the time-line should be linked. This will be quite a job, but one worth doing -- and I know it will result in a very long time-line, but I think this is the only way to ensure NPOV (and any representation of history raises POV issues), and to make this article fully useful. Slrubenstein
Former Poland, former Russian Empire
Sorry 172. Your statement wasnt accurate. There was a pogrom in Kielce, Poland, in 1946. Kielce was part of the Russian Empire, even if it was not part of the Soviet Union. Danny at work
This made me angry. I am familiar with the epidode and to suggest otherwise is just attempt to cast me as ignorant to other users. Its obvious from the sentence that I was referring to areas of the former Russian Empire controlled by the Bolsheviks. Come on, I don't think that anyone thinks that the Bolsheviks had the power to end pogroms in areas that they didn't control.
- There was no attempt to cast you as ignorant to other users. I agree with what you are trying to say. The way you said it, however, is somewhat misleading and I attempted to clarify that. For instance, there were no blood libels in the Soviet Union. There were blood libels in Russia (Beilis comes to mind--important for the "Soviet Jews" article too). There was a blood libel in Latvia in 1923 (I could be off on the year--I am writing from memory, but it was certainly around then). Latvia was part of the Russian Empire but it was not part of the Soviet Union. If anything, I am clarifying your argument--NOT attacking you. Danny
I only said "former Russian Empire" to avoid the confusion with of the Soviet Union being formed in name in 1922, not 1917. That's why I didn't say "Soviet Union". I did not put Russia so that readers wouldn't think that the article was only referring to Great Russia without Ukraine or Byelorussia.
Precisely my point. Much of Poland (inlcuding Kielce) was part of the "former Russian Empire," hence the statement is inaccurate. Danny
Of course I know that. Sorry for the poor wording, but please don't suggest things like that just because my wording might have been ambiguous. Clarify the wording, but don't suggest that I failed to realize something as elementary as the boundary shifts. I made a brief reference to the curtailment of the pogroms. Sorry if I didn't want to get into the dynamics of postwar boundary shifts and the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
No problems. I'm sure you appreciate how history should be worded carefully. Danny
Please see also Timeline of Anti-Semitism. Many items Danny mentioned belong there. Maybe someone will write Timeline of Philo-Semitism? Also, I've devided the history by centuries. Perhaps it would be better to use historical periodization. Humus sapiens 00:16, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Poland, Catholic Church, the Pope & Jewish history
I removed the "First time in history a Polish pope visits the Holy Land." I fail to see what the sentence is saying? Is it the first time in History that a Polish pope, rather than an Italian pope, visits the Holy Land? Nah. And Paul VI visited Jerusalem and Nazareth in the mid-1960s. Danny 12:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- A little earlier I was moving this heart-warming text to talk (but the server maintenance wouldn't let me to save it then): Potentially highly controversial visit, since most of Christians there are Palestinians, turned out to be a success. Unexpectadly to them, Israelis see a visit from with nice, old men, that brings the signs of peace. It seems to them completely different from the traditional picture of the Catholic Church presented in the Israeli media and schools.
- It's not that simple. Try to google for smth like: vatican israel "diplomatic relations"
- I don't understand you. Maybe there are still some remaining issues between state of Vatican and state of Israel, but the breakthrough between Catholicism and Judaism has been made. 126.96.36.199 23:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The "Israeli media and schools" is not the problem. It's about time to break this millenia-old habit of pointing finger at the Jew.
- You seemed to be obsessed by your ethnicity. What exactly do you mean? Anybody, that can read or right, can find out, what Isreali media are saying about the Catholic Church. 188.8.131.52 23:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- This is not encyclopedic information or style. Humus sapiens 17:42, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Why not?? 184.108.40.206 23:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am trying to make this page more relevant to _Jewish_ history. Removed many duplicates, sdome minor items concerning antisemitism belong to History of anti-Semitism. Moving this to talk:
- 1981 First in history Polish-born Pope John Paul II for the first time in history of visits a synagogue. He recalls his Jewish neighbours from Wadowice home town near Cracow. The official Vatican documents lists Jews as "older brothers in faith".
announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The Post Biblical-history section does not mention the Great Assembly, the Zugos, or Shammai and Hillel_the_Elder who reordered the Mishnah from 600-700 section to the now common 6 sections. Chacham 22:11, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Who to mention
A few Nobel prize winners were mentioned however many many more have won a Nobel prize. I believe the first of everything should be mentioned or just the Nobel Peace prize given its importance to this article.
I also believe that Benedict (Baruch) De Spinoza could be listed as a great philosopher. This is of course difficult to reconcile as who should be mentioned in this article is difficult to tell. Certainly Einstein. Perhaps a clearer definition of this would be more appropriate. Any suggestions? Canking 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Founding of the Soviet Union
If it is relevant, I would like the include the Soviet Union's founding in 1917. Not to say that Jews themselves and only Jews created it, of course, but its founding was crucial to all people who lived there, including Russian Jews. For one thing, many of the Bolsheviks were, in fact, Jews. Leon Trotsky, for example. Also, if the fall of the Berlin Wall is of importance to Jews in Germany, so should the founding and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union.--Wassamatta
Use Jewish calendar?
I'm curious why the timeline of Jewish History uses non-Jewish calendar despite there being a Jewish calendar which most Jewish denominations use, and have used for a very long time. Can't the CE dates be given in brackets? After all, date conversion is not that hard.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The dates are given in a form which most readers would find easiest to understand. Just as you would expect a Timeline of Chinese history not be be presented in Chinese dates. Jon513 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would expect the Chinese to use their own calendar! Why else do cultures have their calendars for if they do not use them?! In any case, if the CE dates are provided in brackets, why would "most readers" find that difficult to understand? Many articles provide a similar service in the Julian vs Georgian date conversion. All that is required is a short note at the top and a link to the main article on the Jewish calendar; surely a good thing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The question is, who are the readers of an article like this likely to be? My answer: since the article is a "Timeline of Jewish History", I think most readers will be people who don't know much about Jewish history. I think such readers are also likely not to know the Jewish calendar terribly well. Now, putting the CE dates in brackets would help them, but I'm not sure whom the Jewish dates would help. So, the former seem sufficient here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point! The timeline is of Jewish history, and largely details events in the Jewish culture. Jewish history existed before CE. It currently uses its own calendar. Providing a link to this calendar would also inform non-Jewish readers why there are funny numbers rather then CE, although CE would be in brackets. It says Hebrew Calendar there now!
- Who, and when made the decision to give dates in CE? I can see no discussion on the subject.
- What exactly is the point of a culture having its own calendar, if it can't be used to relate its history to in a work of reference?
- Speaking of the users who may wish to use this as a work of reference, it seems to me that in the first instance the people who are likely to use "Timeline of Jewish History" are likely to be Jewish.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- PS. The WP:SEASON guideline is
"Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided."
MrG, I am interested in understanding your reason for wanting to use a Jewish Calendar. You seem to be asking "why isn't this article Jewish Calendar" instead of explaining why it should. Is there a reason that you view this as an important issue? Jon513 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not seeing this as a Hebrew calendar. I'm asking why a system of recording history in a culture that uses the Hebrew calendar, which is lunisolar, is instead depicted here using a Gregorian calendar which is solar? Do you disagree that this is an important issue?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Does silence signify agreement that a timeline of Jewish history is better represented using the Hebrew calendar, which is lunisolar, and not depicted using a Gregorian calendar which is solar?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't understand what you are saying. The history is represented best in a form that most people will understand, not in a form that the subject of the article would understand. It seem to me that all of the argument you have present so far would work equal well to argue that the article should be written in Hebrew ("why does this article use a non-Jewish language despite there being a Jewish language which most Jewish denominations use"). Jon513 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)