From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I know that this is a page primarily for people who are not Jews and want to know about Judaism and its holy sites/ travel destinations, but I think that Jews or people related to Judaism or the state of Israel are second only to LGBT people in the amount of death threats, violence and hatred they receive globally (more often than not with the state being the primary perpetrator). I think this article should mention that in some way and maybe make some suggestions as to how to deal with or avoid antisemitism. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is always a dilemma, whenever there is a museum of Jewish history or Jewish culture. Inevitably, the Holocaust and other persecutions of Jews are a crucial part of Jewish history and identity, but even more central is Am Yisrael chai! — "The People of Israel live!" There needs to be a "History" section of "Understand" that touches on some of the highlights of Jewish history, and persecutions like the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, the destructions of the two Temples in Jerusalem, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Czarist pogroms, the Nazi Holocaust and the flight of persecuted Jews to Israel and other countries (especially France) from Arab countries in the late 40s and following are among them, and the continued hatred of Jews is definitely worth a mention, but we shouldn't make this article about that hatred. Do you see what I mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand. There seems to also be a problem in remembering antisemitism and the Shoah (and its many lesser precursors and successors) without making Jewish history and culture all about that. There is even an expression among a subset of Germans that goes along the lines of "dead Jews are very popular, it's the living Jews that many have a problem with" (meaning that almost anybody is against the Shoah and goes to memorial ceremonies etc. but hardly anybody cares about Jewish live today and things related to it)... Tricky issue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


This article really is probably getting too long and detailed. Do you think the best thing to do is continue writing about important things, then condense everything, or edit what's there now down?

I think that some remaining important topics are:

  • Expulsions, but they were so numerous that they needn't be detailed, just mentioned in a single sentence or two.
  • Dhimmi status of Jews under Islam, which can be good or bad depending on the ruler.
  • Persecutions under Czarism
  • The Shoah/Holocaust
  • Zionism and the reestablishment of Israel, with a passing mention that the Bund, a socialist anti-Zionist party that promoted Yiddish culture, was the most popular Jewish political organization until the Holocaust.

And somewhere, a few of the brilliant Jewish people should probably be mentioned, though we wouldn't want to make a long list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer thinking it's important to mention specific brilliant Jewish people. But I wonder whether the dates of the construction as well as the destruction of the Holy Temple are important. w:Temple in Jerusalem has some information, but I do fear making this article too long, and the Temple no longer exists, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's another thought, though: I mention the Chasidim, but there's no description of them. It's probably a good idea to briefly mention the Haskalah (Jewish "Enlightenment") and Chasidism. Haskalah is relevant because it explains secular Judaism, which accounts for most of the Jews who instead of being or remaining cantors and scholars of Torah law because world-famous opera singers and secular lawyers. Chasidic men are very visible with their black hats, suits and beards. the question is where to put these descriptions - in "Understand," I suppose. I really feel like I need a non-Jew to help judge whether this article is already too long and what else, if anything, should be in it. So I'm going to hold off for now, but we do mention sects of Muslims in Islam and some basics of Christian denominations in Christianity. The Buddhism article touches on different schools of Buddhism, too, in a brief paragraph. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet I did insert a paragraph on Chasidism and Haskalah. I think that is probably the last paragraph that will be needed in the "history" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The Understand section is indeed quite long, compared to the rest of the article. It's interesting reading and useful for people who don't know much about Judaism, but would like to learn more to e.g. get out more of a trip to Israel. The descriptions of traditional Jewish clothing and such should go into Understand.
I think the article should have many more individual sites like synagogues, important places in Jewish history... ϒpsilon (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should especially mention important sites outside Israel, as the sites inside of it are (or should be) dealt with in the Israel article, but Jewish history and culture elsewhere tends to be overlooked anywhere above the city level (and sometimes it's not even found there). Also is there anything we could conceivably put in the "sleep" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree on listing more important and beautiful Jewish sites, including synagogues, Jewish museums and graves, and as you said, especially those outside of Israel.
I've been pondering "Sleep". I do know that there are some yeshivot (institutions of Torah learning) that allow visitors to stay there as long as they obey the house rules. I wish someone who knew more would cover this, though. The other thing is that Sabbath-observant Jews cannot travel on Shabbat or most Jewish holidays, so they need to find a place to sleep wherever they are traveling during those days, but I don't know if that's important to mention.
Where are the descriptions of Jewish clothing outside of "Understand" that should be moved, or is it that the descriptions of Chasidic clothing that are in a subsection of "History" would be better placed in a separate section of "Understand"? If so, I'm not sure about that because it may be better to keep the single-sentence description of the clothing with the rest of the descriptions of the Chasidim. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was simply replying to your question above ("Chasidic men are very visible with their black hats, suits and beards. the question is where to put these descriptions - in "Understand," I suppose") — IMO it could be a good idea to have a paragraph about that in Understand. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I wrote that before I added the section on "Chasidism and Haskalah" to "History", though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the Understand section is much too long, and very badly written for purposes of this page. Wikivoyage is not where people should go to learn about Judaism. Much better to link to the Wikipedia Judaism and/or Jewish History pages, which do a much better job of describing the topic than we can hope to. Instead, we should have a shorter description, with a focus on the specific locations involved, which are relevant to travelers nowadays. I can draft such a description on my page and link to it for discussion, should people desire. Ar2332 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There is already a link to w:Judaism, as Wikivoyage articles are always supposed to link to sister-site articles of the same title, but other external links would have to either be within the limits of external links#what not to link to or allowed as exceptions to that policy by consensus on this talk page. There should be some explanatory background in this article, but if you can encapsulate that more briefly, that would be great, and a greater travel focus is always desirable in this kind of article. I'd be very interested to see what you come up with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is my rewriting of the "Understand" section. Thoughts? Ar2332 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My first reaction is that this is an improvement. Because it's briefer, it necessarily contains several more generalizations or slight inaccuracies (for example, Maimonedes was Sephardic and a refugee from Almohad Spain). Some of them are in my opinion worth briefly clarifying, others not, but this seems to give us a good basis with which to work. I'll compare it more directly to the current text later, but one thing that stuck out to me was the deletion of the fact that the Breslover Chasidim originate from Bratslav, which seems like it should be included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Added Breslov back in. Ar2332 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we could consider mentioning King Omri with regards to the northern Kingdom of Israel, because there are actually archaeological sites of the cities that he built that you can visit. And I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but I think it's an interesting point that many archaeologists think that the early Jews were polytheistic, and that monotheism only became mainstream in Judaism after the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem.
And I think there should be a mention on what the Tanakh is, and how the Torah comprises the first five books of the Tanakh, since the Tanakh is the principle religious text in Judaism. Since the Tanakh is commonly known in English and the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible, I think that should be mentioned as well. The dog2 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to add one more thing, I think that the Jewish community of Tunisia should be given a brief mention under the paragraph about Mizhrachi Jews. It is one of the last remaining Mizhrachi communities that has not been exiled from its historical homeland, so for travellers it could serve as an interesting historical attraction. The dog2 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of other things I'd add back in, but with an eye towards brevity. Some things have to be simplified in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're trying to say. I think we can probably just state that many historians believe that Judaism has its origins in the polytheistic Canaanite religion, perhaps with influences from other ancient Near East religions. That would probably be enough for this topic. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
But I agree with you that if there are interesting, visitable sites dating back to the times of Kings Omri and Ahab, they should probably be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I added in a discussion of Tanakh.
I am leaning towards leaving discussion of Tunisia to the Cities section - thoughts?
I don't think what Jews believed in the past is relevant to the travel experience. History that resulted in visitable sites is relevant, so are current beliefs of the people you will encounter while traveling, but not past beliefs. It's an interesting topic but I would prefer to leave it to other sites like Wikipedia.
Re King Omri: I put in references to Shechem and Sebastia from the northern Israelite period. Ar2332 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
With Tunisia, I think by briefly mentioning it in the main body of the text, it will point travellers who want to visit and actual Mizrachi community in the right direction even though it is mentioned in the city list. And while we don't have to go into details about what Jews believed in the past, in all the other religion articles, we do give an overview on the origins of the religions. If you look at the Hinduism article, it does mention that scholars believe that Hinduism shares a common origin with the mythologies of pre-Christian Europe. So while I understand that we do not want to make the section unncessarily long, I think we should briefly mention that many scholars believe that the Jewish religion traces its origin to the Canaanite pantheon. The dog2 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And as for the Babylonian exile, I think that we should at least mention that many scholars believe that the Tanakh as we know it today was compiled during that period. At least if you are interested in the history, this is definitely a key milestone, as the Jewish religion as we know it today can be said to date back to that period. At least based on stuff I've been reading and some documentaries I have watched, that was also when monotheism became mainstream among the Jews, such that by the time Jesus was born, the Jews were almost universally monotheistic. The dog2 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I added brief descriptions of Canaanite religious origins, and of the Bible's composition, to the history section. As for Tunisia, could you give me a source for there being a community there worth visiting? According to Wikipedia, there are only 900 Jews there. Besides the synagogue which already has its own listing, what else is worth mentioning? Ar2332 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The community still does exist, not just the synagogue, but I guess if it is already listed later, I'm also fine with leaving the text as it is. The dog2 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder what Ikan Kekek thinks but, should we mention anything about the names of God? If I'm not wrong, Jews use "HaShem" to refer to God when speaking about him in the third person, but address God as "Adonai" when praying in the synagogue. And I think I also recall that "El" was one of the names of God used before God revealed his name to Moses, and that actually forms part of the name of the modern country of Israel. And of course, there is "Yhwh", which is the name that God revealed to Moses, but this name has no longer been pronounced since the destruction of the second temple. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the name issue. If a consensus of other people want it to be mentioned, I'll write something and we can discuss it. Ar2332 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There are many names for God. There are also Elohim and El Shaddai, among others. I think these things could be mentioned, but we have to be careful how far we get into them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So what's your opinion of how we should mention them? The dog2 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The fact that Adonai is Ha-Shem or Adoshem for Orthodox Jews except during prayers and Elohim is Elokim is an interesting curiosity, but it hardly seems travel-relevant, but rather more trivial. So I think a section on names of God is probably not a great idea, but I guess I could be convinced otherwise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but that being said, I think that God revealing his name as Yhwh to Moses is a key event, perhaps the defining event in the history of the Jewish religion according to the Biblical account. And likewise, El is also an important name as it forms part of the name of the modern country of Israel. But I think we can do without mentioning the rest. What do you think? The dog2 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's important, in the sense that the Tetragrammaton is a form of "to be" that is elsewhere explained as "I am that I am", and El was the chief God of the Canaanite Pantheon. I'd have to see the specific text to pass judgment on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess we can just publish the revised version first. I think it looks good, and we can always add some small things later. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


I don't want to change this text without consensus:

Istanbul's Karaköy district, arguably deriving its name from Karay, Turkish for Karaim (Turkic speaking Jews originally from the Crimea and Lithuania)

However, unless Turkish usage is different from Hebrew usage, Karaim are not simply Turkic-speaking Jews but are in fact Karaites, who as I understand it are generally considered by the mainstream of Jewish thought not to be Jews, because they specifically and pointedly reject rabbinic interpretation, including the Talmud, and go even further than that to reject the existence of the Oral Law, including the Mishnah, completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Jewish theology, but yes, Karay are the Karaites, but the level of detail you provided simply looks too long for a paranthesis. (I've made some WP readings before writing that one liner, and decided to go for "Turkic speaking Jews" in the end.) I added that because it just seemed interesting that the district with much Jewish heritage had its name from a Jewish-related (don't know how else to describe them) community. Vidimian (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I could try my hand at this later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel like this works:
Istanbul's Karaköy district, arguably deriving its name from Karay — the Turkish name for the Karaites, a sect with its own purely Biblical, non-rabbinic interpretation of Judaism — has a couple active synagogues as well as a Jewish museum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, though if they still are a notable sect (or produced surviving sights and artifacts to a travel-relevant degree), we might wish to mention them in more detail elsewhere in the article Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same that Hobbit did before me. Regarding the sights, they have beautiful kenesas around Eastern Europe, and have maintained a significant heritage in the Lithuanian town of Trakai. Vidimian (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Karaite/Jewish split could be mentioned and explained briefly in a separate section, yes. The other sect that the Jews split with in ancient times were the Samaritans, who I believe still live mostly near their sacred site of Mt. Gerizim on the West Bank and consider themselves Palestinians. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
According to WP there are less than 1000 Samaritans left. Though they are still known among people familiar with the new testament, because Jesus used them in one or more of his stories (which many people have difficulty interpreting today, because we don't know the contemporary attitudes towards Samaritans) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
How many Karaites are there? I know there's been something of a revival lately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has some statistics. I remember reading somewhere (but cannot find where now) that a group recently converted to Karaism in the US was the first to do so in the last 500 years. While never been there (but would like very much to enjoy some kybyn!), I feel Trakai would be an interesting addition to this article, as well as Karaim kenesas elsewhere in Lithuania, Ukraine (proper), and the Crimea. Vidimian (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
More statistics at w:Karaite Judaism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Judaism to Christianity[edit]

I reverted an edit that was inserted in this article in an attempt to explain differences between Judaism and Christianity. I misspoke a little in my edit summary: What I meant to say is that to my understanding, there is no agreement among Jews on the existence of a "fall from grace" on the part of Adam, and I am not at all clear on the concept of "divine grace" possibly being a Jewish concept at all. In fact, at least some Orthodox rabbis believe that the search for knowledge and the harder path of life outside of Eden were an essential form of growing up, not truly a punishment but actually what it means to be fully human. But once we're talking about things like that, aren't we going well beyond travel-related topics? More discussion under User talk:Ikan Kekek#Clarification, where among other things, I made the point that one could well argue that the doctrinal differences between Judaism and other Abrahamic faiths are not relevant to Judaism but, rather, relevant to those historically younger faiths. By analogy, the differences between Christianity and an arguably post-Christian sect like Mormonism aren't so relevant to Christianity, as the Book of Mormon is irrelevant to non-Mormon Christianity. Similarly, the New Testament and the Qur'an are irrelevant to Judaism, although passages in those scriptures have influenced the behavior of Christians and Muslims toward Jews and are thereby relevant to Jewish history in that respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A - possible - omission?[edit]

I see that the history is quite detailed, but does not seem to give much room to the "Jewish Emancipation" that spread out from Revolutionary France and gave civil and other rights to Jews on par with Christians for the first time in modern European history. Of course it ultimately failed in quite dramatic fashion - at the very least temporarily - and the Dreyfus affair was what triggered the belief in Herzl and others that it cannot be successful, but it's an important event in European and Jewish history, nonetheless. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it if you like, but tread cautiously, considering the failure, which should include Nazism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Guide status and FTT?[edit]

See dotm#American football for the current state of affairs in FTT world. We need a candidate for December 2017, and it looks like Judaism is close to if not already at Guide status. Ikan, you're the only one of the two recent major contributors to still be active; in your opinion, is there any major thing this article lacks? Or is it perhaps ready for promotion and nomination as is?-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is. A bunch more cities with important synagogues need to be added, with those synagogues added to the listings of the cities in question if necessary. I lack expertise on where the most important synagogues are in most places I haven't visited, though, so I'd have to do web research like anyone else in order to add that information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I just read through the article again. It's in better shape than I remember. Still, it's obvious that cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Paris, Amsterdam and Antwerp need to be added and characterized. I could add them, of course, but the only one I could even begin to say anything about the Jewish life in it is Paris, since I've been there a number of times and know the Marais is the center of Jewish life but also that Jews are under attack in France (OK, the Anne Frank House is obvious in Amsterdam, but though I know a Dutch Jew, I couldn't say where the major concentration of Jewish life is in Amsterdam). Even the "United States" subsection seems incomplete, with as yet no entries for Philadelphia; Chicago; New Orleans; Charleston, SC; or Atlanta. I think more work should be done on the "Cities" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Nonetheless, I think seven and a half months is a more than reasonable timeframe for that to be done within. I'm torn on whether to nominate Judaism imminently despite its Usable status, as I did with American football, just to avoid a ? on the schedule grid next month (it's been, what, about two years since we've had one? That's a pretty good run), or to hold off to avoid setting a bad precedent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is probably fairly a Guide, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I created an entry for Charleston, SC. Here's a resource for New Orleans, although there are quite a few other search results for "history of jews in new orleans". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
On another continent, the Cairo Geniza needs to be mentioned. See w:Ben Ezra Synagogue. There are almost no Jewish Egyptians left in Egypt, but the synagogue is still there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Ar2332 has worked a lot on the article as of lately, thanks for that. Coords for the places in Cities and See need to be added, but otherwise the article looks quite good in my opinion. I think we can upgrade the article to Guide and nominate it. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This will be a very good article, but though it's probably a Guide now, a lot of work is still ongoing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I upgraded the status to Guide, and we can nominate it for FTT when the article is ready. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"With the exception of during certain festivals such as Yom Kippur or the Passover"[edit]

I'm unfamiliar with synagogues welcoming non-Jews except on Yom Kippur or Pesach. Instead, the shuls I know, including Orthodox shuls, have been perfectly friendly to my Catholic girlfriend when she's attended High Holy Day services, including on Yom Kippur, and Lincoln Square Synagogue, probably the most famous Modern Orthodox synagogue in New York, had as a member of their congregation an Episcopalian woman who was welcome at any service. As far as Pesach is concerned, I rarely go to shul and normally go to a seder; most seder hosts I know welcome non-Jews who come with an open mind, but that's of course up to the host, and those who don't like non-Jews will be no more likely to invite them to a seder than to their son's bar mitzvah.

I think that whether or how much synagogues welcome non-Jews is a lot less likely to be a function of the day and a lot more likely to be a function of how insular the congregation's attitudes are. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some denominations of Chasidim didn't welcome Jews from outside their sect, let alone non-Jews, but I frankly haven't tried to go to services at any non-Lubavitcher Chasidic congregations.

So getting back to the point: Is this statement fundamentally accurate and in no way misleading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be restrictions in some places based on the security situation. I've heard of one Jewish person who says she has to say who she is and whatnot if she wants to attend a service at a synagogue elsewhere. And there are other security measures in place like police protection. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, but then I guess the point is that any time when there's an unusually large number of attendees, a non-Jew who isn't friends with a member of the congregation may be barred entry at certain shuls due to security concerns? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I would have to ask again for clarification, but it appears that at some congregations in (I presume Germany) they don't let people in who might be a threat and asking "Where are you from, where do you usually attend" is just one security measure. Irrespective, it would appear of the particular service, whether it be regular Sabbath or a High Holiday. But then again, I would have to ask for clarification on that. Sadly the Jewish places in Germany where neither police protection nor metal detectors nor anything of the likes are deemed necessary are few and far between... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


I'm unsure whether Penang is worth listing, but if so, let's be accurate: The departure of Jews from Penang had to have started earlier than 1976, because when my family visited then, the one synagogue lacked enough members to form a minyan for services except maybe occasionally when a few visiting foreign Jews were in town during the High Holy Days. Some of the remaining old Jews said that there used to be a somewhat larger community, but that except for old people, the rest had left for Singapore, the UK, Israel and maybe one or two other places. But are you sure they were pushed out by rising hostility? Probably to the extent that things had changed since Malayan (sic) independence in 1957, but did things get progressively worse afterwards? During trips to Malaysia (1975-77, 2003), I found that there is bigotry against Jews, but also against every other group of people, by other groups and their own. I found it fine to live, go to school and travel in Malaysia, but I wasn't trying to personally constitute a Jewish community there, just being a member of a kampung and then a guest in the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What is true is that after Mahathir became prime minister, he did engage in a lot of anti-Western, anti-Singapore and anti-Jewish rhetoric. To be fair, he did not try to systematically kill off or exile the Jews in the same way that many of the Arab nations did after the establishment of the State of Israel, but at least according to some articles I have read where they interviewed a Penang Jew living in Australia, one thing he said is that what drove many of them to emigrate was the fear that something bad could happen to them under the prevailing political climate. As to whether or not it's worth listing, it was historically one of the most significant Jewish communities in Southeast Asia, and the Jewish cemetery is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, so that could warrant a listing. The dog2 (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's convincing enough. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Worship at the Temple[edit]

From the article:

"Originally Jewish worship was focused on the Temple in Jerusalem"

According to the Bible, Jewish worship originally focused on the Tabernacle, when Jews were nomads. I don't think we need to mention that in the article, but would it be more accurate to edit the passage to this?

"In ancient times, Jewish worship was focused on the Temple in Jerusalem" Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Ar2332 (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Cities" and "See"[edit]

Do we agree that these sections should be merged? If so, what would be the best way to do that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bank of England[edit]

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is the the Rothschilds, which is a Jewish banking family, were one of the founders of the Bank of England. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I Googled "rothschilds bank of england" for sources. The most important reputable sources appear to be here and here. In short the Rothschilds were very rich and were able to give the Bank of England loans at crucial points, but they didn't found or directly control it.
In any case, I have a broader objection. We are talking about the "Modern era" section, but Jews were involved in banking and money lending long before the modern era, and it was a cause for antisemitism then too, so I don't think it makes sense to mention this only here. Also, this is an article on travel not on Judaism in general, if we went into every subject in this much detail I think the article would be much too long.
I suggest that we modify the last sentence of the paragraph, "sometimes basing itself on "racial" (rather than religious) criteria, which its 19th-century proponents started calling anti-Semitism to sound more "scientific"." to "sometimes basing itself on "racial" (rather than religious) criteria, which its 19th-century proponents started calling anti-Semitism to sound more "scientific", and other times basing itself on much older reasons, such as jealousy for Jews' perceived wealth." Ar2332 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Your suggested changes sound reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me too. And perhaps there can also be a note about how the Jews were forced into money lending because they were forbidden from taking other jobs by the Christian governments in places like Florence and Venice. I understand the whole connection between Jews and finance is a very sensitive one, so we should make sure we approach this subject in a fair and appropriate way, and avoid perpetuating stereotypes.
And as a side note not related to this article, the resentment the Jews faced in Europe and America is strikingly similar to the resentment the ethnic Chinese face in Southeast Asia today. Although being from Singapore I didn't experience it first hand due to ethnic Chinese forming the majority, if you look at the history of anti-Chinese sentiment in places like Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, you see a lot of parallels with anti-Semitism in the West. The dog2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should encourage the "Jewish banks" Bullshit even by refutation. I don't think an in-depth analysis of modern antisemitism is within our scope and I see no reason in trying to understand the reasons for antisemitism than in better combating it, which again is not the purpose of a travel guide. We also should avoid the discussion of Israel based antisemitism or the three d test because while valid and useful they have more to do with antisemitism than with Israel or Judaism and this is not a travel topic on antisemitism. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That being said, it is a fact that having to endure centuries of anti-Semitism is a significant part of the history of the Jews. The dog2 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
We are mentioning that. But asked in the wing way the question as to the why of antisemitism becomes an antisemitic dog whistle in itself and let's please avoid that bee filled grenade (can if worms is too weak an expression) Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Links in section headers[edit]

I see that a lot of country names are linked in subsection headers in this article. I think all those links should be removed, because linked section headers can't be used in linking to the section (e.g., Judaism#Spain wouldn't work). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? Links to Judaism#Singapore and Atlantic slave trade#Senegal (for example) seem to work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
That's odd. I had always understood that the reason not to use links in section headers was that links to the sections in question didn't work. I also don't see the guideline not to link them at Wikivoyage:Section headers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with linking a section header, as long as the link isn't confusing or distracting. My practice has been to link section headers when they are names of places—that's what I've done in Places with unusual names and Atlantic slave trade, for instance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
One reason not to link section headers is the effect on mobile, where each section of a page is automatically closed. You have to click on the header to open the section. With a linked section header, you'd better press the little triangle, otherwise you're going to a different page without meaning to. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point for the main section headers (like "Understand" and "Cities" in this article) but it doesn't seem to apply to subsection headers like "Spain". —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
That's true. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The URL of a link to a linked header is still awkward, very hard to get right if you compose it yourself. I used to have to do that quite often. I do not remember why, but if people not conversant in HTML and URL syntax have to do such things, that is a good reason to avoid them. --LPfi (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem awkward to me. , the same as if the header wasn't linked. Maybe it used to be more complicated, but if so, it isn't anymore. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Different branches[edit]

Coming to think of it, I have noticed that this article does not have a description of the three main branches of Judaism; Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. I'm no expert on this, and all I know is those are the three main branches, and Orthodox Jewish men are required to wear their kippah all the time, and not just while in the synagogue. Could someone with good knowledge of this perhaps add it into the article?

Added. Ar2332 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


My copyedits were reverted, restoring a bunch of capitalization, punctuation, and formatting errors. Here is a partial list explaining why they were made.

  • "one of the oldest religions in the world that still exists today." Yes, "still exists" is in the present tense, so we know that it means today. Let's avoid redundancy, which makes for dull writing.
  • "The capital of the northern kingdom was originally in Shechem, but wandered several times" - replaced by "The first capital of the northern kingdom was Shechem, but it was moved several times" - it didn't move itself. It didn't go walk-about. The king moved it.
  • There is a passage where I replaced the construction "Baghdadi Jews would migrate to the cities of Calcutta and Bombay" with the more straightforward "Baghdadi Jews migrated to the cities of Calcutta and Bombay" because the "would" was used inconsistently, and without any obvious benefit. That narrative construction can be useful where you're dealing with a narrative that does not move in a straight timeline. In this case, the narrative does, so there is no need for it.
  • "the Six Day War in 1967" is clearer than "the war in 1967"
  • I think the sentence "The number of the calendar year is supposedly calculated from the time of the Earth's creation" is disrespectful. "Supposedly" is often used to cast doubt on a statement. Particularly in an article about Judaism, we should avoid that sort of language. "The number of the calendar year is calculated from the time that the Earth is believed to have been created" is better, I think. Maybe "... that the Jewish cosmology says the Earth was created" would be better yet. Other suggestions?
  • "Currently, in recent years, located", etc. - see WV:wta
  • Don't expect all readers to know what GDR means. Let's spell it out -- WV: abbreviations
  • "Stalin"- Standard writing style to use first name and last name the first time, then last name thereafter if it is unambiguous.
  • "century" is not capitalized here.

I am willing to discuss any of these edits, but I need to know which ones were a problem. Restoring punctuation, capitalization and formatting errors to make some point without explaining what that point is is harmful to Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming Wars in the Modern Middle East[edit]

Given that the major wars (1948, 1967, 1973) all have different names and different attached narratives, depending on whether one takes the Arab or Israeli "side", maybe it is smarter to just say "the [year] war". This is, after all, a term that does not subscribe to either narrative and that both "sides" can live with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

We should probably use the name that is most familiar to our readers. For example!e, Wikipedia calls the war in 1967 the "Six-Day War", noting that it is also called "The Setback". I'm not much of an expert in Arab-Israeli conflict, so I've never heard it called anything but the "Six-Day War". We can accommodate sensitivities by putting an alternative name in parentheses after the common name. Wikipedia seems to have settled on "1948 Arab–Israeli War" and the "Yom Kippur War" for the preceding and subsequent wars, noting that they are also called the "Israeli War of Independence" and "Ramadan War" respectively. Ground Zero (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It's sometimes called the 1967 War. I think we should use the Israeli names in this article, though, with other names in parentheses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)