Talk:Jewish diaspora

Removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed

The claim that roughly 2 million people live in New York City metropolitan area is probably accurate, but should be referenced. Perhaps this document might be sufficient: [http://www.ujafedny.org/atf/cf/%7BAD848866-09C4-482C-9277-51A5D9CD6246%7D/JCommStudyIntro.pdf]. --Kevin Murray 13:16, 9 August 2007(UTC)

Just to clarify -- in the above note, I believe you mean to say "roughly 2 million Jewish people live in New York..." R0m23 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Check this link : http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel It says that the fact that in Antiquity we found Jewish people all around Mediterranean sea is not due to diaspora but to proselyting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jews do not proselytize. Period. Rumors of Second Temple era proselytizing were created as part of a psychological warfare campaign to undermine Jewish ethnic identity. The appearance of Jews in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages was due to the persecution of Jews in Arab occupied Israel. For a time, Jews found a more tolerant climate in the Mediterranean. As a result, Jews emigrated there in large numbers and Jewish religious communities flourished in Spain and Greece. Here is a brief explanation of why proselytizing does not appeal to Jews: <http://www.aish.com/atr/Jewish_Proselytizing.html?tab=y> Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55

For posterity - Garrettrutledge55 has not produced a scholarly source. According to Albert Lindemann, Antisemitism before the Holocaust (2014, p.20), recruitment of converts by Jews was relatively common during the Hasmonean era.

On the other hand, this by no means implies that there was no Jewish diaspora, which had already diversified to include a movement West during the second century BCE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearance of Judea

I may be a total innocent walking into a maelstrom, but here goes. Is it tradition that the Jews were cleared out of Judea or is there evidence? I have put a citation tag on a sentence for this reason. What was the main religion in Judea in 500CE? JMcC (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Roman histories report the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation that preceded the destruction of the Temple. Biblical archeologists have also affirmed the Jewish oral and written histories of the slaughter and expulsion of Jews from Judea. The dominant religion of Jews living in Judea in 500CE was Temple Judaism. Temple Judaism was characterized by the rituals performed in the Temple and the role of the Kohanim or Temple priesthood. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55

Could an admin hat this fruitless discussion, of two editors talking past each other three years apart? Newimpartial (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-Aliyah diaspora inside Israel?

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

Re. Debresser

 ( The following is copied from my talkpage )

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

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

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

The WP:3RR discussion has shown clearly enough that this text was introduced in August 2015 by another editor with more detailed and balanced wording,[2] and was changed several times by you[3] and you alone[4] into the unqualified and unattributed statement that you are pushing here. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ongoing dispute on this article

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

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

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

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

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

ARBPIA/Ds now applied

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

RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora

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

---

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

Sources

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

The options are:

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

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

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

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

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

Survey/Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jewish diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

After Rfc

The Rfc was closed with "Consensus favors DonFB's version, presented at the bottom of this RfC. This close does not preclude wording tweaks, further refining, or other improvements that may be necessary or helpful." I therefore took the liberty to restore the word "mass" as in "mass expulsions". It was present in the original text, and if there was any special reason to remove it from the sentence, then such a reason was not explicitly mentioned in the discussion. Per the closure of the Rfc, adding it back is is clearly within editor discretion, and Dailycare's argument for reverting "Those were not mentioned in the consensus version" is not valid.

Likewise I changed "leading" to "some" per my objection in that discussion. Dailycare, my opponent on this talkpage from the beginning, disagreed with that, claiming that sources represent it as the consensus opinion. That, however, is not really an argument not to use the word "some". As the proposer of the accepted version said himself: "A different or added qualifier for 'historians/scholars' could be one of the following: 'some/several/many/most'. Obviously, that would invite more debate." Since there is only one source, which does not specify a qualifier, I think it is obvious we can not say any more than "some", without violating WP:V. "Leading", in any case, is not supported by sources, in addition to it being a violation of WP:PEACOCK. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, it took six months to arrive at consensus here. See my comment above concerning why "some" is plainly and transparently wrong. If the opposite opinion of A is "absent", then saying that "some" experts hold opinion A is incorrect and misleading. It would be like saying that "some experts" feel the Earth is round. FWIW, I feel "sudden" is unnecessary and misleading in the text, since the sources don't require it, but it's in the new consensus version and I prefer having a stable ok version to editing this sentence every day. And, this is the crucial point, please discuss changes to the brand-new consensus text before making them in the article. This would be the "more debate" part of the consensus proposal. According to the sources, historians (not only "some" of them, but historians as a group) consider the Diaspora to have non-exilic reasons. Since that's what the best experts in the field say, we should say something that means more or less the same thing. And it is not wrong to say that e.g. the dean of humanities at the Hebrew University is a leading expert. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

And that consensus is centered around certain elements, but not a fixed wording, as the closing commentary clearly stipulated. The word "mass" is obviously needed in connection with expulsion. Surely there would be no significance if all we were talking about was the expulsion of a family from its home, or even of the citizens of a town from their houses. Only because we are talking about mass expulsion is this even relevant. We have one source that claims that "historians" say such and such. That means that all we can say is precisely that: Israel Bartal claims that historians say such and such. In any case, the word "leading" is not supported by the source, and the editor who proposed the consensus version said himself that possible qualifiers can be "some/several/many/most". We can discuss that question here, if you disagree with my "some", but you can not claim that the Rfc was closed with a consensus to have "leading". Now, I would also like to remind you that you were blocked recently for edit warring on this article, and being that you are the one who felt it necessary to make the edit after the Rfc, and that in the process of making that edit you made a few choices as to the wording which were not specified in the proposal, you have WP:POV and WP:OWN issues here that can easily be proven. Please be aware that further edit warring with a false claim of consensus for the precise wording you prefer, will not be received well. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are terrible for this kind of history. Doubly terrible when they are argumentative pieces in this case against Shlomo Sand. The link is broken now, I remember reading it and Israel Bartal basically argued that Shlomo Sand was misrepresenting the views of historians.

This has now been twisted into “leading historians” agreeing with Shlomo Sand. Strange when Shlomo Sand himself admits that his views are not shared by what he sees as Zionist historiography.

Dailycare you have many historians you can draw if you are really working in good faith please do so, you will find that nothing is as clear cut as you think.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonney 2000 is correct. Israel Bartal is ONE leading historian, but here his argument is being taken off of an argument of his against Shlomo Sand, who is a very controversial Jewish history historian. All the other names referred to by the sources in this section are not "leading" historians by any means. I think the "some historians" version is fine for this section and should remain like that. The "mass expulsions" is also OK since this is the popular view anyhow. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, you're making the error of behaving as if the RFC didn't just happen, based on the closer's acknowledgement that tweaks might be made. Likewise DonFB laid out his suggestion, and while he said the qualifier could be different after further debate, in the suggestion it is "leading", which is consequently the current consensus. However, as I'm sure you wholeheartedly agree, any tweaks need consensus and they need to be in-line with sources and policy. As I've patiently explained, "some" is wrong as DonFB also explains above (it gives the impression of a minority viewpoint which is disputed by the sources). However, to move this forward, I think "most" would work, even though it presents the consensus as weaker than the sources. The expulsion is described as "one fell swoop" in the NYT source, but A&B say "widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 CE, respectively)", giving no indication of suddenness, and Bartal states "the myth of an exile (...) is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", which likewise does not characterize the myth as relating to a sudden exile, but exile more generally, including a gradual exile which happens over a century. Therefore, I would tweak by removing "sudden". "Mass" is not in the sources and seems to be accidental editorializing on your part. As to the block, I hardly need to remind you that you were blocked as well. You would do well to self-revert to the closed version of the text. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dailycare Perhaps get over it and stop fighting good edits just because I made them?

Shlomo Sand is mostly notable because of his divergent and controversial points of view. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus required provision now in effect

I realised the Consensus required provision was removed from ARBPIA, but I'm adding it to this article, for now (may lift it at a later date). So, no new changes without gaining consensus first, for the foreseeable future. El_C 05:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus version (RfC)

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

"Mass," supplanting "leading" with "some"

Do not appear to be part of the consensus (RfC) version, Debresser. So on what basis do you deem it to be such without obtaining consensus first? If there are objections to it, I'll give you a chance to self-revert before applying sanctions. So are there objections to these changes? El_C 19:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all. At the moment you restored the consensus required provision, the version on the page was the version which was changed by Dailycare, so it is up to him to show consensus, and there can be no talk of applying sanctions to me for reverting him.

As to the issue itself. The Rfc was closed with "This close does not preclude wording tweaks, further refining, or other improvements that may be necessary or helpful." Whether to include the word "mass" or not, was not specifically discussed in the Rfc, so falls under "refining" and/or "improvements". As I argued above: "The word "mass" is obviously needed in connection with expulsion. Surely there would be no significance if all we were talking about was the expulsion of a family from its home, or even of the citizens of a town from their houses. Only because we are talking about mass expulsion is this even relevant." Nobody has brought any argument against that, and frankly, I think there can be none.

The proposal that was affirmed in the closure stated specifically that "A different or added qualifier for 'historians/scholars' could be one of the following: 'some/several/many/most'." Since the word "leading" does not appear in the source, and violates WP:PEACOCK, again I think there can not even be an argument that it has to be removed. Jonney2000 also argued that same point convincingly in his commentary above: "This has now been twisted into “leading historians” agreeing with Shlomo Sand. Strange when Shlomo Sand himself admits that his views are not shared by what he sees as Zionist historiography." Debresser (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Mass" is not in the sources and amounts to unnecessary editorializing. Obviously anything that results in the movement of thousands of people involves a lot of people. This is not only about "sudden mass" expulsions but also slower progressing ones. Further, "some" does not correctly reflect the fact that the sources describe this as the consensus position among historians, not merely "some" of them. Therefore, "some" fails WP:NPOV. As discussed above, I'm open to changing this to "most", instead of "leading". Claiming that the RfC close or the adopted suggestion allow free editorial revision of the content amounts to refusing to acknowledge the RfC closing has any bearing on anything, which clearly is not the reason uninvolved editors took the trouble to participate in it. --Dailycare (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Debresser, that's not how it works. The point of WP:CRP is that you gain consensus for anything not in the RfC version, including tweaks, otherwise what's the point? I'm glad this is being done now (below), but it should have been attempted before making changes. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to what the discussion is about, so I'll just hat it Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I looked at some sources on the results of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. To summarize this issue, I quote Avi-Yonah, who surveyed in detail the severe demographic and economic situation following the revolt under the title “Rebuilding of the Ruins.” In spite of his harsh descriptions he summed up his discussion by saying that “at the same time, they also show that the number of Jews who remained were still fairly numerous because they con-stituted a significant force that the authorities had to consider.” And else-where he said, “Even after the Bar Kokhba war and the period of persecution, Jewish settlement in the country still remained numerous and of significant economic and military capability.” He also cites J. Schwartz, Judea in the Wake of the Bar Kokhva Revolt, which surveys Jewish settlements in Southern Judaea in this period. Between the Bar Kokhba revolt and the christianization of the empire, the main areas of Jewish settlement included Upper and Lower Galilee, Dios-polis-Lydda and its vicinity, perhaps Joppa and some scattered settlements elsewhere on the Mediterranean coast, the Golan Heights, and the semidesert fringe of Judaea. As already suggested, Jewish settlement in Judaea proper was drastically reduced in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt. 2 What then became of the district is unclear, but it may not have recovered fully until late antiquity, when it began to benefit from the attention of the Christian state. What Jewish population remained in Judaea was confined to its edges: there are scattered pieces of evidence, especially but not exclusively late antique, for Jewish settlement in such agriculturally marginal villages as Zif, Eshtemoa, and Susiyah, south of Hebron. Joppa, conventionally considered Judaea’s port but for most of its history a normal Levantine town with a mixed population, retained some Jewish inhabitants even after it was rewarded by Vespasian for its loyalty to Rome during the first Jewish revolt. References From what I can see, the sources say that Jewish population in Judaea proper was much reduced after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E., but significant Jewish settlements remained in Judaea and the surrounding areas. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence does need further tweaking. The idea here is that people believe Y but mainstream scholars say X. WP has a whole article on List of common misconceptions that includes a section on history. We don't need to qualify the "historians" with anything like "leading" or "some", nor even mention "historians". The content could simply say: "There is a widely held misconception that the diaspora was the result of a mass expulsion of Jews after the Bar Kochba Revolt." Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Louis Feldman seems to take Josephus numbers at face value. However, I think the general mood among historians are that these number are inflated. Even inflated historian view 70 CE as a very significant event. Cassius Dio’s history gives massive numbers for 135 CE again probably inflated.

• Part of the problem is the over inflated number of Jews in the roman world which Baron and Feldman promoted. Which has since been disproved first by Leonard Rutgers and then John R. Bartlett and accepted by Feldman. Bartlett argues convincingly that archaeology even wide field surveys cannot accurately answer the demographic questions and that we basically have no idea what the demographics were.

• We know that Jews remain within the land of Israel in the Galilee etc. These communities produced various writing Jerusalem Talmud, targumim etc. The Sanhedrin seemed to be under pressure and moved a few times. The general view is that the Jewish population was not health and under significant pressure. Until the Arab conquest.

• By the time you get to 614 the general view is that Jews where reduced to 10-15% of the population of the land and had been very much a minority a while. In very much a minority view Moshe Gil argues Jews were still a majority in the early 7th century.

• Basically no one knows and we just have rough estimates.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not on point. The question is whether the diaspora is the result of mass explusions after Bar Kochba, and it wasn't. It grew gradually with time. The rest of the paragraph in which this content stands, explains that. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The general view is that modern Jews are largely not the descendants of Hellenized Jews. We can be sure about this to some degree because they follow Rabbinic Judaism.

Everything grows with time but 70 CE and 135 CE are very much considered to be main facts. By historians not just the popular option. Whether or not it was caused by conversion pressure, massacres or exile matters little. What matters is that 70 CE and 135 CE massively changed the demographics causing a Rabbinic Jewish diaspora where before a Hellenized diaspora had existed.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote is based on refs in the current article. Am happy to follow RS, so please provide refs that reflect mainstream scholarship for the claim that the diaspora is the result of those two explusion events. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

When I have time I will work on this, it is a massive job, in the past many historians just took this for granted. They would just quote directly from Josephus etc.

Only recently have more critical approaches become prevalent. Post 1980s you also start to get hysterical political writing due to Post Zionist pressure.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000's points are correct in that modern historians think that the numbers given by Josephus (and Cassius Dio and most ancient writers for that matter) are inflated. Basically, nobody knows much about demography in this period; it's all guesswork of some sort or another. Some of the estimates are better than others.

The point at issue, however, is whether the Diaspora was created (or mostly created) due to the events of 70 and 135. Obviously the diaspora existed both before and after this period; and the events of 70 and 135 are obviously important. In what sense, then, is the sentence correct? Are there any sources at all which say that the diaspora was a result of the events of 70 and 135? I haven't been able to find any. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There are sources (in the article with text in the citations) to the effect there is a widespread mis-conception that the Diaspora is the result of expulsion(s). That's what this discussion here is about, and how to characterize the extent of expert disagreement with this popular mis-conception (since the mis-conception is widespread, it is notable and deserves mention) The current consensus version, established recently in the RfC above, is that "leading historians" disagree with the popular misconception, but other options could be "most historians" or "some historians". I would agree with "most", but not "some", since that creates another mis-conception in that it sounds like a minority viewpoint, whereas in reality (and per the plural sources in the article) it's the consensus viewpoint among experts. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dailycare: I understand your point, and am mostly in agreement. What I'm asking about is the reverse proposition: are there scholarly sources which state that the diaspora was the result (or mostly the result) of the expulsions in 70 and 135? As far as I can determine, nobody in scholarship really holds this view (I do not know much about this topic). Therefore, the use of "most" for arguing against this proposition might well be an understatement, "some" is probably a big understatement and probably misleading. Thus, I also think that "most" is better than "some". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "most" is a slight understatement, and for many years the text did simply state that historians dismissed the mis-conception which I'd be OK with as well. The recent RfC, however, didn't go with an unqualified statement and the RfC was closed just over a week ago, so the consensus is very new. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dailycare objects to David Aberbach (A Jewish studies scholar at a major university) but somehow a reporter in the NY times is just fine meh whatever. Aberbach also wrote about the Jewish wars. His view is not only his own it comes from Heinrich Graetz and still persists.

See p1-22

https://books.google.com/books?id=9trWVaX8n_4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Was+70+CE+a+Watershed+in+Jewish+History?:+On+Jews+and+Judaism+before+and+after+the+Destruction+of+the+Second+Temple&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig26XkiLzUAhVr6oMKHfFVArUQ6AEIIjAA#v=snippet&q=exile%20&f=false

No one argues that the diaspora (Jewish living in exile) was created by the Romans that is stupid. However, POV that the Jewish wars had little impact is also marginal.

The text we have now attributes the diaspora to the Assyrian destruction of Israel really? The ten lost tribes have been found I guess. Diaspora also covers a wide area geographically but the text just makes it all one blob.

Most, some or many don't care but leading is not good. I am not sure what the sentence is trying to say. I think it is trying to say that the Roman exile is a myth but ended up saying something that makes little sense given the context.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm the Rfc respondent who originally proposed "leading," with the purpose of avoiding the usually contentious "some/several/many/most." I hold no brief for "leading" and defer to consensus view on any alternative to that word. My Rfc suggestion was based purely on judicious copy-editing, not on any special knowledge of the subject. DonFB (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at some things Jonney2000 and Dailycare (probably Debresser also?) seem to agree on. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding or mangling your positions:

• The diaspora was not created by the Romans in the period 65-135.
• The events of 70 and 135 did have major consequences for Jews in the Roman empire and beyond.

Now, is it true that a "widespread popular belief" holds that the diaspora was created (or mostly created) by the events of 65-135? If we can phrase better what this "widespread popular belief" is (using scholarly sources of course), there will be less disagreement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against using Aberbach, just against using him for something he didn't say. Again, I'm fine with a change to "most" if that's preferred. Concerning the belief, the sources cited in the article say e.g. "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say all historians and also all religious Jews argue against the Romans creating the Galut. I think ambiguity is very misleading. Sorry Dailycare I thought you had reverted me.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose changing the text and moving it into the lead of the section see below.

The Jewish Diaspora began with the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. As early as the third century BCE Jewish communities sprang up in the Aegean islands, Greece, Asia Minor, Cyrenaica, Italy and Egypt. Dating the numerous settlements is difficult. Some settlements may have resulted from the Jewish revolts. Others such as the Jewish community in Rome were far older dating back to at least the mid second century BCE. Although it expanded greatly following Pompey’s campaign in 62 BCE. In 6 CE the Romans annex Judaea. Only the Jews in Babylonian remained outside of Roman rule. Unlike the Greek speaking Hellenized Jews in the west, the Jewish communities in Babylonia and Judea continued the use of Aramaic as a primary language. The defeats in 70 CE and again in 135 CE would swell the Diaspora population while simultaneously reducing the Jewish population in Palestine.

Jonney2000 (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Very unclear text. What is "in the west"? And mostly because these are all different, albeit overlapping, times. You jump from Babylonia to Hellenistic to Roman without explanation. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dailycare, Jytdog, Kingsindian, and Debresser: I made some changes. The text cannot be an entire summary of the article. I hope I am not wasting my time here.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• don't forget the Cochin Jews who were in India sometime "in the first millenium BCE" (ref) You are doing great, thanks Jonney. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The first evidence for Cochin Jews comes from around 70 CE I think. I don’t mind adding a sentence like “further afield the first evidence for Cochin Jews is dated from around the time of the first Jewish revolt.” But it may be getting off topic.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000, that text seems pretty much OK, but I'm not entirely clear on what change in the article you're proposing? If you mean an addition to the lead, I'm prepared to support that, with possibly the sentence "Only the Jews in Babylonian lived outside of Roman rule" removed, since as also Debresser notes, this covers a large timespan. I believe the current text in the "Roman" section should remain, since the popular misconception concerning the origins of the Diaspora merits mention as it is mentioned in many sources and the sources further describe it as a significant controversy (as many people hold a view that is rejected by experts). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The following texts gets replaced with something along the lines of what I wrote. Removing the POV and unreliable sources.

A widespread popular belief holds that sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina led to the Diaspora, [28] but leading historians disagree with that view.[29] 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.[30]

I made some more changes That address your issue so we need another RFC or can I change the text?Jonney2000 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, following Dailycare's suggestion, add a sentence about the "popular misconception"? Otherwise, the text seems ok to me. I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to provide more detailed comments. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think adding “popular misconception” has two problems.

1: It invites in the IP conflict.

2: I would need a long discussion about Christian views of the Diaspora as a punishment for killing Jesus.

3: It plays into cultural bias of the west.

If we have it would need to be under a section “Christian views of the Diaspora.”Jonney2000 (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "leading historians", since the word "leading" has no basis in any source, and has been contested by me and other editors here. Per all possible policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that word can not be used. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I don't think you've read carefully. The discussion is about Jonney2000's text, which does not contain "leading" anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha, you're right. I looked at the source code, and missed the <s>. I think this proposal has merit, especially after it was improved, fixing the issue I raised above. I added a comma and removed a "n" in the proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The popular misconception is well supported by academic sources, and the sources furthermore describe it as a misconception in Israeli society, not Christian society. Frankly, I don't see how: 1) it would "invite" IP in, 2) what it has to do with Jesus or 3) any cultural bias, aside from the misconception itself. That there is in Israel a widespread, incorrect view of the Diaspora's origins is significant and described by reliable sources as significant. It appears someone has edited the earlier suggestion, wherefore I'll have to specify my support concerns the version that was up at: 11:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC). The current version is not sufficiently concise and to the point for the lead. I don't see the connection between the text recently agreed in the RFC and this suggestion to enhance the lead with a statement concerning the origins of the Diaspora. If something isn't covered in the article body, it can't be in the lead either. --Dailycare (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The relationship with Christian theology this is all over the scholarship. We already had something about this but it was hiding. I made a new section. It should also cover the Wandering Jew and the relationship with antisemitism and Christian anti-Zionism.

We will never have 100 percent agreement. I made the edit. The way forward is to add more details.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dailycare 1. The Rfc never concerned the lead. 2. The whole article is about the diaspora and its origins. 3. I didn't notice sources saying that the misconception is specifically in Israel. Please support that claim with sources. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jonney2000 Regarding the "defeats in 70 CE and again in 135 CE". You would have to specify what defeats (who was defeated, by whom). I would say something like "The military defeats of the Jews in Judaea to the Romans and their consequences for the civilian population etc." Debresser (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The RFC concerned the text Jonney is suggesting we delete. We're now discussing the lead, which is another edit. I've asked Jonney why he feels there is a connection between his suggested text and deleting the RFC text. Debresser, Bartal states "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions". The RFC text is well sourced and recently agreed in RFC, so removing it would require some extraordinary reasoning, which we, IMO, have not seen. Cheers --Dailycare (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Lead of the article

Disclaimer: I do not know much about this topic. I read one of the sources quoted in the discussion in the previous section. It states that: The historical demographic reality is that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora resulted from emigration and conversion to Judaism rather than expulsion.

Now, either this source is blatantly wrong, or the lead of this article needs to be drastically rewritten, because the latter gives virtually the opposite impression. The lead does not even mention conversion.

I see that this point has been raised as far back as 2005 by Sponsianus and more recently in 2013 by Oncenawhile. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The topic is a bit controversial, both politically as well as among historians. That is a problem that can only be addressed by careful editing and precise attribution to sources. Which is one of the reasons I am so opposed to the misleading phrase "leading historians" in the section above. I am all in favor of adding information and theories, but one has to be careful how to represent new and controversial theories on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a mention of the popular misconception the diaspora is a result of exile in the lead, but it's fallen by the wayside at some point. Since WP:LEAD stated significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead, it should be there. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What this article is missing is a section covering each of the primary scholarly debates, with - as Debresser rightly says - precise attribution to sources. I would like to help but am focused on another group of articles right now. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally Jewish communities after a certain date are viewed as very insular. Some Feldman and other do argue for conversion in the ancient world but very little evidence exists. The source is just stating the authors opinion as fact.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Little evidence is correct, but there is some - see e.g. this list of historical conversions.

This small amount of evidence contrasts with the expulsion myth, for which there is no evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile Where then did this myth, as you call it, first show up? Debresser (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Myth of the Exile

@Debresser: asked above when the myth first began.

Israel Yuval explains this well at:

• The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship, by Israel Jacob Yuval, Common Knowledge - Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33, Duke University Press;

Yuval explains that it was first given form in Gittin 56a by Johanan bar Nappaha, who lived in Roman Palestine. Yuval says: "Naturally the question arises as to how sages who were living in the Land of Israel could have expressed a complaint that the people had been exiled from its land. For were they not living in their land? Was the Galilee, their dwelling place, not regarded by them as a part of the land of the Jews?"

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The answer is obvious and well know: only a handful of Jews remained in the Land of Israel, while the majority was located elsewhere, in exile. How is this even a question to you? Debresser (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned above that arguments should be based on sources, which I can also endorse. Gruen, who I feel we all agree is a senior academic in the field states "Compulsory dislocation of people cannot explain more than a fraction of the eventual diaspora". Bartal, another senior academic, states "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions" --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

But Bartal does not say that in an academic publication. That was just a book review in a newspaper. That is not a good source to build your central thesis on.

Add to that the fact that Bartale apparently completely ignores the religious literature, which is very clear about the beginning of the "galut" being related to the Romans. He may not consider that "serious Jewish historical discussions", but in view of the fact that most Jewish literature has been over the ages of a religious nature, that attitude seriously undermines his reliability as a historian. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is one source among many others, and Bartal is reliable in this field in his own right, regardless of the medium. As you, as an experienced editor, doubtless well know. In the Jerusalem RfC there was a discussion on "meta-sources", which are senior experts in their field who give their opinion concerning the scholarly consensus. Such viewpoints are extremely useful for wikipedians since they can be used to establish weight. Your opinion on "religious literature" has no relevance to this discussion that I can see. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope you were not trying to imply that Bartal would be such a meta-source. Because he isn't. And certainly not when he writes a book review for a newspaper.

I did not express an "opinion" on religious literature. I offered a possible explanation why Bartal makes such blatantly incorrect statements. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

But you are positing the thing you mean to prove, Debresser. First you would have to point to a serious historical discussion in which the "exile under the Romans" is presented as historical fact, rather than religious myth. So far, you have not done so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Gruen, for one. You make the mistake of confusing two things. Nobody said "all Jews were forcibly exiled from Israel by the Romans". But the fact remains that after and as a result, directly or indirectly, of the crushed revolts against the Romans, the exile became complete, in that Israel stopped being the center of Jewish life. And, again, that does not mean that there was no large diaspora before, because there was, but till that time, the center of Jewish life was considered to be located in Israeli, and that stopped after the revolts. All of this was explained already at length more than once on this talkpage, but here you have it in a nutshell. By the way, i resent your implication that Jewish sources would be any less historically authoritative than other sources which are perhaps more popular in the academic world. that is a problem of the academic world, which does not change the fact of history in any way. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Gruen says that the revolts caused the Jewish people to go "into exile"? In what passage?

And I am by no means implying that "Jewish" sources would be less authoritative than others, in any way. I am staying that religious traditions - any religious traditions - do not have the same standing in this discussion as scholarly evidence - regardless of the religious or cultural background of the scholar. Which is precisely what this "myth vs. history" paragraph is about. The paragraph is about the facts of history vs. the myths. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet you call what Jewish sources say "myths"...

That the revolts contributed to the exile. I don't have the book, sorry. I only see what others write and reference to Gruen. Debresser (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Following the published, scholarly sources I am calling the account that the Jewish people were "sent into exile" under the Romans a myth. Nobody is saying that there was no population movement connected to any of the revolts, but the reputable, scholarly literature says that the diaspora preceded, continued alongside, and was not caused by the revolts, and that therefore there was no "exile". If you read a scholarly (rather than faith-based) source that says the contrary, that is what would be needed to change the text. Otherwise, the religious authorities document the myth, not history. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No historian I know of, not even Shlomo Sand if you call him that, will deny that there was Jewish exile from Jerusalem following the defeat of the 66-70 CE revolt against the Romans in Judea and following the destruction of the Herodes Jerusalem Temple by the Roman forces under Titus in 70 CE. And no historian claims that these developments did not have profound consequences in Jewish history. The Jewish diaspora itself (to differentiate it from the Hellenistic diaspora as Jonney2000 has correctly done above) was not created starting in 66 CE and going forward, since it had started already with the Assyrian exile way before the second Temple period, as also already introduced correctly in this discussion by Jonney2000. But the destruction of the Herodes Temple, the loss of Jewish political sovereignty, and Jewish exile from Jerusalem all had deep impact on the subsequent history of the Jewish diaspora and of the Jewish people. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not in doubt about that overall trajectory, Warshy. But what is your scholarly source for a "Jewish exile from Jerusalem"? Yes, I know that practitioners of the Jewish faith were banned from the city, but what is the source that terms it an "exile"? Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you go read some Jewish history? From Heirich Graetz to Simon Dubnow, to Salo Baron, to one of the central modern sources for overall Jewish history used in this article also, Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson on this issue of the destruction of the Herodes Jerusalem Temple and Jewish exile from Jerusalem and Judea in general after 70 CE? warshy ^(¥¥) 13:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Then just cite a passage from one of those authors who discusses a historical moment when Jews were "exiled from Jerusalem", and we can discuss that rationally. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just been reviewing Ben-Sasson on the aftermath of the 130s revolt, and do not see any discussion of "exile". Indeed, there is a whole subsequent discussion of Jewish academies in Palestine in the second and third centuries, which mitigates very strongly against the idea of an "exile" in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Why "exiled from Jerusalem"? I mean, why Jerusalem? Debresser (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"From Jerusalem" because while the Roman authorities did not prevent Jews from living in Palestine, they did prevent the re-establishment of a Jewish presence in and around Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt (Hayam Lapin, Rabbis as Romans: the Rabbinic movement in Palestine, 100-400 CE, 2012, p. 15). Jewish communities continued in Galilee and elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You, again, are confusing forced and factual diaspora. Forced diaspora may have been only from Jerusalem (may have been), but factually the result was that many Jews left the whole of Israel and its Jewish population dwindled to a minimum. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. There is an actual diaspora - that is what the whole article is about. The "Myth of Exile" is precisely about forced diaspora. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. Whether you are confused, or you confused me, but there is confusion here. :) Debresser (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bartal would seem to be precisely a "senior expert in their field who give their opinion concerning the scholarly consensus", making him just the kind of source that is highly useful for us in establishing what the scholarly consensus is. He is just the kind of person who we can safely assume is familiar with the state of scholarship and reliable for statements concerning it. Adelman and Barkan are similarly useful, since they explicitly describe the "popular imagination of Jewish history" and contrast it with the "accounts of historians or official agencies". --Dailycare (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a hoax. The good news is that Israel Bartal is very much alive and he'll have to straighten this mess up, hopefully pretty soon. The whole Shlomo Sand affair was bombshell in the field of Jewish history, because he is really a master politician and polemicist, and the issue had to have a first response from professional historians. The Bartal being quoted here throughout, as Debresser and Jonney2000 already pointed out multiple times, is being quoted by a journalist in the New York times and referring to his first reactions to the whole Shlomo Sand polemics issue strictly. Nothing more. In this context, he certainly cannot be quoted as a "historical" reliable "source." But the Sand polemics will also continue for many years, and hopefully Bartal is going to be able to publish true historiographical material on the issue soon. And until he does, I suggest we base ourselves on Ben-Sasson only as the last professional historian word on the subject. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Further scholarly sources viewing the exile as a myth

See below further sources viewing the exile as a myth. The original of both were written in Hebrew.

Chaim Gans (2016). A Political Theory for the Jewish People. Oxford University Press. pp. 247 [Footnote 97]. ISBN 978-0-19-023754-7. Many of these scholars also oppose Dinur°s and mainstream Zionism's historiographic "negation of the exile". Bartal writes: "This historiographic tradition [regarding the ties between the Jews and the Land of Israel] which was created more in accordance with ideological patterns and changing political conditions, seems to us today, from a perspective of one hundred years and more since the first days of [early Zionism], as part of the history of a new nationalist movement rather than as a critical research of this history. Bartal, "Land and People," 49. Already more than twenty-five years ago Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson wrote that in his opinion Zionism's historiographic "negation of the exile" was an ahistorical phenomenon. See Ben-Sasson, Continuity and Variety, 35-38, 48-49.

Hebrew originals:

• קוזק ובדווי: עם וארץ בלאומיות היהודית, תל אביב: ספרית אפקים, הוצאת עם עובד, תשס"ז
• רצף ותמורה : עיונים בתולדות ישראל בימי-הבינים ובעת החדשה / חיים הלל בן-ששון, ליקט וערך יוסף הקר

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

None of the Zionist ideological issues has anything to do with the Second Temple period exile from Judea or the history of the Jewish diaspora. Dinur is not cited in the article and the Zionist "negation of the diaspora" ideological issue has nothing to do with the history of the exile and diaspora. warshy ^(¥¥) 12:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora part 2

We had a RFC which was closed. Almost all the editors who commented had no clue about the relevant scholarship. We have an editor who is thinking in terms of the Israel Palestine conflict insisting that we need to keep a defective passage which is not supported by scholarship.

The first source is not written by qualified historians and is a polemic about the Israel Palestine conflict. The other two sources are news articles relating to Shlomo Sands one written by a reporter with no special qualifications. And the other a book review by Israel Bartal who argues that Shlomo Sands is wrong. He its writing for the popular press and it is hard to tell what Bartal is arguing. This has been twisted into Shlomo Sands is right. Someone should check and see if it was translated by Haaretz. I have a hard time believing that the out of context snippet is really Bartal’s view.

Almost all the editors in the discussions above agreed that the paragraph could be changed. Now one editor who was edit warring earlier is saying that we need to keep the defective passage. A RFC should not be a suicide pact.

The passage is defective for many reasons.

1: We are told that the Diaspora starts with the exile of the ten lost tribes.

2: All historians disagree that the Diaspora was created by the Romans. The passage says only leading historians disagree.

3: We are told that one expulsion singular occurs. The source says 70 and 135. Which is more than one expulsion to start with.

4: The paragraph is very creative in how it uses the sources. It would be more accurate to say that Shlomo Sands argues that Zionist historiography perpetuates a myth. A view which Israel Bartal rejects as itself an Invention.

5: The paragraph is barely cogent we should simple give facts and scholarship not bizarre polemics.

6: The paragraph is trying to push a POV that the Roman exile is a myth and never happened.

Now that we have a better introduction and a section about Christian theology. Should the paragraph be removed or not [5] ?Jonney2000 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment have you read the Israel Yuval work above? Yuval is a mainstream historian, and his work on this topic, to my knowledge, has not been disputed in serious scholarship. This puts a view different face on a number of your points above. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not about Israel Yuval please stay on topic.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that the answer to the question in the section above is so obvious and well known, that I find it unbelievable that the question should even be asked. I haven't read Israel Yuval, but surely he must mean something else. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• RFC Comment This RFC is not easy to follow, but I believe the paragraph is the one beginning with "A widespread popular belief holds". If you look at the inline citations, the paragraph seems to follow the sources quite accurately, IMO, and the text reads fairly clearly to my ear. "Ten lost tribes" on the other hand seems not to be mentioned, so it may be you mean a different paragraph after all? Erich Gruen, Israel Yuval and Ilan Ziv also opine that the diaspora is non-exilic, in addition to Bartal, Adelman&Barkan and the NYT cited in the text (apparently) in question. The operative sources are listed in the RFC above. In general, reliably sourced content is usually not removed wholesale and the wording of this paragraph was just agreed in the RFC above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Dailycare, the precise wording of that paragraph was not discussed in detail in the Rfc, only the general lines of it. The proposal itself as well as the closing of the Rfc are very specific about that. There is an acute need to review the precise text of that Rfc. Specifically, I think it is imperative according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to remove the unsourced and misleading "leading historians". Shlomo Sand is so controversial, he can not be used as a source. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand is not being used as a source. I'm OK with just "historians" instead of "leading historians". --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea what this RfC is about. It is not valid in this form. Please see the RfC guidelines: the RfC header should be brief and neutral. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Kingsindian, that although it is clear to me something is rotten in Denmark, but it is not clear to me what the proposal is here. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• RFC Comment - despite the too-long to navigate proposal i think i could understand the meaning and would like to comment on raised points:

1. Jewish diaspora clearly doesn't start with the exile of the ten lost tribes. The whole issue of ten lost tribes is a misunderstanding and is rather an issue of biblical scholarship related with the Kingdom of Israel and Samaritans. The Jewish diaspora begins with the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE by Neo-Babylonian Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

2. I haven't read "all historians", but i can comment that the exile and diaspora was not started by the Romans. The Jewish diaspora began with Babylonian Exile and then the secondary diaspora was formed during Hellenistic and Roman eras. We cannot say that Romans created the diaspora, though in two cases the conflict with Roman (and Byzantine) Empires contributed to the formation of diaspora - the Great Revolt of Judea (1st century CE) is traditionally thought to be the direct cause of Jewish refugees reaching Hispania, while the disastrous Jewish revolt against Heraclius (7th century CE) is often connected with the establishment of the bulk of the Jewish community in Lower Germania in early Middle Ages.

3. Romans didn't expel Jews as a policy. They did however cause massive Jewish casualties and refugees during the Great Revolt, the Kitos War and the Bar Kokhba Rebellion and later during Byzantine times as well. The 70 and 135 events certainly were not the prime points of time for diaspora formation, even though some Jews did flee Judea at the time and reached into diaspora. Diaspora was created before, during and after Jewish-Roman wars and not just because of them. Having said that the Sephardic Jewry is traditionally connected with the 70 event.

4. Shlomo Sand is not an historian dealing with Jewish history (he is modern Frence historian), so he should not be in the lead.

5. OK

6. Romans contributed to the formation of the diaspora, but were not the prime cause for its creation.

That is it for now.GreyShark (dibra) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello GreyShark. Thank you for your comments, with which I basically agree. Would you be able in time to maybe expand a little bit on the statement above that "Sephardic Jewry is traditionally connected to the 70 event," and maybe provide some sources for it? I'd appreciate that, if you could. Thanks again. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC comment This RFC is about as useful as mudflaps on a Turtle. Mudflaps won't keep mud off a turtle and this RFC is not set up in a way to achieve a consensus. Multiple editors point out that this RFC is confusing and the creator feels the need to act as a cruise director in the discussion. Any close should reflect No Censensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Improving the lede

I would request that another user, preferably Debresser, restore the material I placed at the end of the paragraph "The Jewish Diaspora began", which is sourced and uncontroversial:

Meanwhile, the Kitos War led to the destruction of Jewish communities in Crete and North Africa, in 117 CE, and consequently the dispersal of Jews already living outside of Judea to further reaches of the Empire.<ref name=JewishEncDiaspora/>

Also, please remove the Elazar citation at the end of the sentence "Jewish leaders and elite were exiled from the land, killed, or taken to Rome as slaves." I have read the entire Elazar article this morning, and it says nothing of the kind.

This section could also be used to discuss other improvements in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Done #1, acted on #2 by removing source and tagging it. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. To continue the discussion, the other issue addressed in my previous edit (reverted here [6]) was the summary passage about the Jewish diaspora prior to 70 CE. We have documentation of communities prior to the Maccabean revolt in Egypt and Rome (among other places), and of additional migration in the second and first centuries BCE. Could I take another try at editing that passage, with additional sources? I have no intention of being argumentative, only to clarify what is currently a rather murky article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My problems were the addition of the seemingly unrelated sentence "Before the middle of the first century CE, large Jewish communities existed outside of Judea, in the Roman provinces of Egypt, Cyrene and Crete and in Rome itself." in the middle of a paragraph, and the unexplained removal of the sentence "The revolts in and suppression of diaspora communities in Egypt, Libya and Crete in 115–117 CE had a severe impact on the Jewish Diaspora population." By the way, I hope you noticed I restored another improvement of yours. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.

The sentence I removed was replaced with the more appropriately located, more precise and better-referenced sentence that I requested re-added above (to which you agreed).

The sentence I added was accompanied by a new paragraph break, and was intended to place those who left Judea after 62BCE in the context of those who had emigrated previously. I see that I did not do a great job of integrating that piece of context; could I try again? Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But that sentence seems, at first glance, to omit details, as compared to the previous sentence, which was also sourced.

If I will not be held to the 1RR rule, then be my guest. Or perhaps propose it here first. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So I have given it a try, and certainly this should not count against your RR count if you would prefer to revert rather than to edit. If it is accepted, the other Smallwood reference should be abbreviated.

A good edit. In that same spirit of cooperation I removed two words which seemed unnecessary to me, making the statements even more matter-of-factly. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The wordsmithing is appreciated. I have made another edit now earlier in the lede, which is not intended to shift POV in any way, just to provide a more coherent account of the Babylonian exile. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Exile

Is there any evidence that the Romans forced the Jews into exile? They never exiled any other nation.

Weird sentence

Although the two branches comprise many unique ethno-cultural practices and have links to their local host populations (such as Central Europeans for the Ashkenazim and Hispanics and Arabs for the Sephardim), their shared religion and ancestry, as well as their continuous communication and population transfers, has been responsible for a unified sense of cultural and religious Jewish identity between Sephardim and Ashkenazim from the late Roman period to the present.

Are there any sources for this? First, "links to their local host populations," gives the reader the impression that Jews were completely detached from other parts of society. "links" and "host" very much emphasizes the distinctiveness part. Second, "a unified sense of cultural and religious Jewish identity between Sephardim and Ashkenazim" What is a unified sense? If this unified sense existed, it must be referenced. ImTheIP (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)