Talk:Yellow badge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yellow badge is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II Wikify: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia inline citations should be changed to footnotes and edited for comprehensibility. Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Lida-District/lida-hist.htm

About the Sigismund and Yellow Badge: "In 1566, however, the nobility finally attained power and were allowed to participate in the national legislature. They produced the repressive Act of 1566 that stated: "The Jews shall not wear costly clothing, nor gold chains, nor shall their wives wear gold or silver ornaments. The Jews shall no have silver mountings on their sabers and daggers; they shall be distinguished by characteristic clothes; they shall wear yellow caps, and their wives kerchiefs of yellow linen, in order that all may be enabled to distinguish Jews from Christians." [p. 126] About twenty years later, however, the nobility withdrew these restrictions. "

Yellow Badge was obligatory from 1566-1586 in Lithuania, according to those informastions.

Contents 1 New Iranian law 2 Minor correction to timeline 3 "To curry Fauvel" misunderstood 4 Unverified tag 5 New info 6 Sourcing 7 {{anti-Semitism}} 8 Yellow patch vs. special clothing.

[edit] New Iranian law

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

I will await further, more reliable sources before branding this fact. It has already been added and removed once. Joffeloff 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Ynet, UPI Joffeloff 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More on this in Wikipedia at 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy. Appears to have been a hoax. --John Nagle 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor correction to timeline

I made a minor correction to the article. Caliphs were not Persian or from Persia, Harun al-Rashid and Al-Mutawakkil were both Arab rulers and their entity was called Arab caliphate or Abbasid caliphate, not Persia. --ManiF 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "To curry Fauvel" misunderstood

Unclear where that phrase came from, but it's wrong. The phrase "to curry Fauvel" comes from the Roman de Fauvel, a political satire from 1314. "Yellow horses being worthless" doesn't have a source, either. Brittanica says Fauvel was "fawn-colored"[1], which would be a palomino, a prized color even back that far. This bad info probably came from this blog.[2]. --John Nagle 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified tag

With the number of refs and extlinks, I think it is safe to consider these [3] [4] edits disruptive, especially given User:Irishpunktom's history. WP:AGF goes only so far. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are not nearly enough primary sources used. Ignore AGF, and just source the claims. I don't care what you think of me, just try and make this decently sourced. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New info

I just recently added the info from 1058, 1085 and 1091. I cited each internet source but failed to format it like the other references (mainly because I don't know how to do it). I realize the "1091" info is exactly the same as the 1121, but it shows that this "decree" was in effect (during the First Crusade) from at least 1091 - 1121, 30 years .(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

I've formatted them as per WP:FN and removed a personal website. Please see WP:RS, WP:V. The more reputable sources we use the better. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

There seems to be consensus now that the article needs to be better sourced to meet the criteria for history articles (as well as WP:RS there are special notes for history articles in the History project page). Are editors aware that there has been a lot of discussion (see talk:dhimmi for example about whether the Jewish Encyclopedia is an appropriate source? In any case JE is very old and it is better to rely on modern scholarship whenever possible. I suggest that the second paragraph mentioning the sources of the JE article should be taken out, as these sources are 19th century and are not needed here. Any objections? Itsmejudith 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should stay. Age of the material shouldn't matter, just as long as the info is solid. Also, is this discussion of whether or not the JE is an "appropriate source" fueled by the fact that it is not a Muslim source? I'm not Jewish or Muslim or even Christian, but I would hate to see a source being deleted just because it wasn't from Islam's perspective. All areas should be covered. (In fact, I would LOVE to see an article written about Islam’s perspective on the Crusades!!! I know there is a book on Amazon.com about it.) Granted, it may seem bias at times, but (with a little NPOV rewriting) JE’s info can be more detailed than many modern books. But wouldn’t you think Muslims sources would be a little biased as well?

To tell you the truth, I have more problems citing wikipedia as a source! Half of the info on here is wrong. Take the Jurchen and Jin Dyansty, (1115-1234) articles for example. User:Breathejustice keeps on adding incorrect Korean info to the page because of nationalistic pride. Its the same on other articles. People will either read something out of context or dream up something they thought they once read and then edit the article with the false info. At least JE had a panel of experts.

I do like the change that you made to the "710" section. I have always read that the Pact of Umar was actually written later and then attributed to him to give it credibility. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

The irony is that it is editors who are sympathetic to Islam who are defending use of JE and those who seem to have a more pro-Israeli stance who are insisting that it is out of date and unreliable. I'm more interested in consistency. A compromise has been suggested: that statements sourced to JE should stay in unless contradicted by later scholarship. I'd be OK about that, but since you agree with the change to the Pact of Umar section, perhaps you won't mind thinking again about that second paragraph and what, if anything, it adds to this article.

Is the book about the Islamic view of the Crusades on Amazon by Amin Maalouf? If so it is a historical novel. I haven't read it yet, but if it is anywhere near as good as his "The Gardens of Light" then it should be recommended. Itsmejudith 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. It should go since it represents the Pact of Umar as being written in the 7th century. Yes, that book I referred to is by Amin Maalouf. It’s called "Crusades Through Arab Eyes". This is what Amazon says:

"The author has combed the works of contemporary Arab chronicles of the Crusades, eyewitnesses and often participants. He retells their story and offers insights into the historical forces that shape Arab and Islamic consciousness today." (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Unless any particular item is challenged by another reliable source as being unlikely, they all should stay, and be listed without overly skeptical qualifiers. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope every point in the timeline can stay but some are not yet derived from acceptable sources and that needs to be addressed, which I have started doing. If there is no consensus for qualifiers then the statements will need to be fact-tagged. Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source for a history article, but it may not be a problem. Someone who has her book can look up her source and then that can be traced and added (as well, not instead).

As for JE, you will remember the discussion on talk:dhimmi [5][6] [7] Itsmejudith 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What, in your view, makes Bat Ye'or an unreliable source for a history article? As for the JE, as I said in that comment, it is "marginally acceptable if you can't find any other source, but it should not really be relied on if better sources are available." That is entirely in line with my comment above - if you find better sources that contradict the JE, then you should not include the JE's claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple, she is not an academic historian. Historians, even those sympathetic to her views, have made a range of criticisms of her methods. The big problem with the dhimmi article is that it relies too much on her work and thus picks up a lack of balance. Fact by fact it may be OK but the combination of facts is not balanced. Luckily this is much less of a problem for this article. And one thing that Bat Ye'or does seem to do is cite her original sources properly, so they can be followed back as I suggested. Re JE many thanks for explaining. It is a good consensus position and will help a move forward on this article and others. Itsmejudith 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{anti-Semitism}}

I've added this template... other editors may disagree with its addition due to neutrality reasoning. It is probably arguable that labeling some historical examples of religious followers obligations to wear distinctive markings as anti-Semitism is a bit anachronistic but given the strong association between anti-Semitism and the yellow badge (particularly during the Nazi era) this template makes sense here. No? (→Netscott) 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Please have a look at the Islam and anti-Semitism article: "There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-Semitism". It was part of discriminations and humiliations, but not anti-Semitism at least in Muslim lands. I even doubt that it was particularly directed to Jews rather than Dhimmis in general (Muslim jurists were not distinguishing between Christians and Jews) --Aminz 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, well edit away, I'm not going to argue strongly about this... I made mention of the logic you're expressing here in my own talk on the matter. What probably needs to happen is a section on the anti-Semitic nature of the utilization (ie: Nazi usage, etc.) of the yellow badge needs to be created and then the {{anti-Semitism}} template could be properly added there. (→Netscott) 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow patch vs. special clothing.

I've removed this section from the quotation:

(Under Shi'a rules, they were not allowed to use the same bathrooms)... Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character...^[1]

To begin with, the quotation was fairly long. In addition, and more importantly, this article is about "Yellow patches" - that is, special patches or similar items Jews (and sometimes Christians) had to wear. Lewis is very careful to differentiate between clothing restrictions, which were usually (though not always - see his examples regarding the footwear of Moroccan Jews) social or political, and patches etc. which were intended to humiliate. The quotation is about patches, not colored clothing - please stop inserting unrelated text from later sections about clothing restrictions, which were generally used for a different purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1. (Under Shi'a rules, they were not allowed to use the same bathrooms) is an unjustified removal.

2. Of course these were intended to humiliate. And these were not specific to Jews at all. May I ask you to read the Lewis's book carefully before making judgment. There were several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that Non-Muslims living under the Muslim rule had to live with. Yes, they were mostly symbolic and social rather than tangible and practical. --Aminz 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the bathroom stuff again because it's not about yellow badges. I'm not sure how I can make that more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making the sentence unfactual. The whole bathroom quote isn't about yellow badges either. I have removed it by the same argument. --Aminz 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The bathroom quote was about yellow badges and similar distinguishing marks, as is this whole article. Shi'a bathroom rules are not about such distinguishing marks. Why is it important here? And please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, Point #1. The article now says: "Even when attending the public baths, non-Muslims were supposed to wear distinguishing signs suspended from cords around their necks, so that they might not be mistaken for Muslims when disrobed in the bathhouse." Assuming Shia Muslims are Muslims which I think you agree, this sentence is factually incorrect. Since in Iran, non-Muslims were not supposed to wear distinguishing signs in bathrooms (since they were going to their own bathrooms). That sentence says that was so in Muslim lands. That is not a universally factual true sentence. My question to you is that if it was unnecessary, then why Lewis added that parenthesis? That information was certainly not related to the ongoing discussion. Jayjg, please assume good fait. I was avoiding WP:POINT. I said that sentence is factually incorrect as it is there. You replied to me that it is irrelevant. So, I thought you are saying the bathroom thing is irrelevant so I took the whole thing out. --Aminz 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims were excluded from Shia bathhouses, because of Shia rules regarding the impurity of non-Muslims - it's even worse that the special mark rule, but it's not about yellow badges, and not particularly relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they had their own bathrooms and that's why the sentence is not factual now. I may file an RfC on this. --Aminz 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Had their own bathrooms" and "were excluded from Shi'a bathrooms because of impurity" are radically different ideas, and in any event it's still nothing to do with yellow badges or other similar signs. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with yellow badges. True, But the sentence without this explanations fails to be factual and that's why Lewis points this out (it has nothing to do with the context). Here is the logic: (*) Shia Muslims are Muslims. (**) Muslims asked Non-Muslims to wear distinguishing marks in bathrooms. If (*) and (**) are true --> Shia Muslims asked Non-Muslims to wear distinguishing marks in bathrooms (***) which is not true. (***) is not true, (*) is true --> (**) is not true. End of proof. --Aminz 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, put it back in if you must. I still think it's an unnecessary digression. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also remove this sentence: Nevertheless, by and large, Islamic rule was one of toleration for the Jews, Hilary Rubinstein states. because it's not about yellow badges. Please let this article discuss yellow badges, and not invent original research defences of Islam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Check out the book. --Aminz 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why it is relevant? Yes, the previous sentence discusses yellow badges - but you managed to leave out that part, which actually described them as the "notorious" "yellow badge of shame", and instead brought in the fact that other parts of Muslim were, by an large, fairly tolerant. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Point #1. Thank you for eventually reading the book. Point #2. I used two sources to write that paragraph: The quote from Lewis says: "... and was the most degrading of the regulations." I thought that explains it well (the article also already says it was related to the humiliation of Jews in Muslim lands). If you would like to add the "notorious" "yellow badge of shame" feel free to do it. I won't object. BUT I think you need to take back your accusation of original research :General defenses of Islam culled from unrelated books are original research, not invent original research defences of Islam. And as I think you wouldn't do that, I won't be waiting for it. Point #3. Please assume good faith when you have all the reasons to do so. I think I was quite honest and invited you to read the book. That quote was quite in the context of yellow badge. --Aminz 08:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I claimed the original research was yours; it turns out that it was the author's. The paragraph is already quite clear that the yellow badge et al regulations were the worst of the regulations, and even then were intermittent. Regardless of that particular author's rush to defend Islam, the article is about yellow badges (and related markings), and not about general Muslim-Jewish relations. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So, do you agree to have the quote back? --Aminz 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Dhimmi_in_the_literature --Aminz 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think I was quite clear already. The article is about yellow badges and similar signs, and it makes it clear that these were some of the worst of the humiliations, and were intermittently applied. General statements about the overall nature of Muslim-Jewish relations are not helpful, particularly when you consider that they cover over 1,500 years, and dozens of different kingdoms, countries, dynasties, religious rules, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I dunno how we could reach agreement. It is relevant to the article as (Yellow Badge) is related to (Toleration toward non-Muslims in Muslim land) which in turn is related to the quote I mentioned. The source explicitly makes this connection. How can it be irrelevant? And you might find page 62 of the Lewis book interesting where he says: The status of dhimmi was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews but ceased to be so after the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis. --Aminz 01:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that without such general statements the historical method used in this article, which is mainly a timeline and so does cut across many centuries, is not sufficiently explanatory for an encyclopedia. That is why good historians such as Lewis make these explanatory statements. There is already a potential problem in the timeline in that it contains entries relating to 1) signs of undefined type and various clothing items such as hats, belts and shoes, 2) patches/badges of different colours and 3) specifically yellow patches/badges. Let alone what the social implications were at any one time. As the article stands the implication is that the discriminatory practices originated entirely in Islam before suddenly moving into Christendom with the Fourth Lateran Council. However, the Mediaeval Sourcebook has a document summarising legislation in relation to Jews in Christian-ruled states from (as I recall) 300CE to 800CE, which makes it quite clear that social discrimination against Jews was already rife in the remants of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires well before the spread of Islam. I am not saying that all of this or any of this should be included in this article, because I have not (yet) found any reference to distinguishing marks, only (!) to laws such as "Jews may not go outdoors in Holy Week". But it is clearly inaccurate to imply that there was anything unique about the Islamic world in its capacity to discriminate on religious grounds. Itsmejudith 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If explanatory statements are needed, they should be properly integrated into the text. That particular one was jarring, a strange apologia apropos of nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)