Talk:Yellow badge/Archive 1

Lithuania
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. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffeloff (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Badge was obligatory from 1566-1586 in Lithuania, according to those informastions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffeloff (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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", which would be a palomino, a prized color even back that far. This bad info probably came from this blog.. --John Nagle 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Unverified tag
With the number of refs and extlinks, I think it is safe to consider these  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)

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   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)

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 template could be properly added there. (→ Netscott ) 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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... 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)

Why the Star of David?
This entry doesn’t explain why the Nazis designed the yellow badge in the shape of a Star of David and not in any other shape. It also doesn’t describe who decided to design the yellow badge, where and when.

To fill these gaps see: “Under the Nazis the term "yellow badge" first appeared in Robert Weltsch's article "Tragt ihn mit Stolz, den gelben Fleck" ("Wear the Yellow Badge with Pride"), published in the Judische Rundschau on April 4, 1933, in reaction to the anti - Jewish boycott of April 1, 1933. At that point no official Jewish sign was in existence and there were no plans to introduce such a sign. Weltsch was apparently referring to the slanderous and abusive inscriptions painted on the windows of Jewish - owned stores and businesses in "Operation Boycott" of April 1, and the relapse to medieval times that it signified.

The proposal to impose a distinctive mark on the Jews was first made by Reinhard Heydrich at a meeting held in the wake of the Kristallnacht pogrom, in November 1938.”

Source: http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x02/xr0254.html Courtesy of: "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust" ©1990 Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY 10022 Zeevveez 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jews were singled out?
Humus sapiens and Beit Or, Yellow Badge was equally applied to Christians and Jews. Please explain your justification for reverting me? --Aminz 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Roma people, Gays were possibly persecuted alongside with Jews does not mean that this was not antisemitism. How is a degrading and humiliating Jews as Jews is not antisemitism? Read the letter from Baghdad (1121) as an example. "Yellow Badge was equally applied to Christians and Jews" - in Christian lands as well? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of antisemitism. Scholars such as Claude Cahen and Shelomo Dov Goitein define it as the animosity specifically applied to Jews only and does not include discriminations practiced against Non-Muslims in general. In any case, we are mentioning that it was humiliating. I don't think anybody disputes that. --Aminz 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, please do not restore saying "Jews were singled out" because that was not the case under Islam. --Aminz 10:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please avoid personal attacks. Thanks --Aminz 10:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Humus Sapiens has made no personal attacks. He simply made an observation about you editing, and wasn't attacking you personally. What I on the other hand think is more interesting is that you come back after a week-long block for a violation of 3rr and immediately start where you left 7 days ago, reverting the article back to your version. -- Karl Meier 10:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the content dispute instead of blindly reverting me. --Aminz 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and avoid assuming bad faith. -- Karl Meier 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer to you is that you have clearly misunderstood Bernard Lewis. If you want his view of "Islamic tolerance" towards Jews, read his article "Muslim Anti-Semitism," published in the Middle East Quarterly - http://www.meforum.org/article/396.-- Gilabrand 11:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually in Lewis's view, in the late nineteenth century movements first appear among Muslims that can legitimately be described as antisemitic (lewis, "jews of Islam" p.184).
 * In this article (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21832.html) Lewis says: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil."--Aminz 11:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim that yellow badge was not related to antisemitism is your original research. Even Lewis doesn't say that. Beit Or 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lewis doesn't say what? Please show me where Lewis says Yellow badge under Islam was connected to Antisemitism. The person who claims existence of link should provide sources for it. --Aminz 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

When did these laws start to fall out of favor?
The article lists the dates when numerous laws were passed, but it doesn't say (except in a few cases where the laws was repealed shortly afterwards) when the laws were taken off the books. The result is a timeline that doesn't really provide a sense of history, just a series of events. It should also probably try and indicate what historical events were influencing attitudes at the time in each case... whether it was some political or religious faction pushing for these laws, some sort of social shift, etc. Right now, most of the entries are just a laundry-list. --Aquillion 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The timeline leaps suddenly from the 16th century to the 20th - what happened in this period? Drutt 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In Europe, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In the Ottoman Empire the millet system, in which I believe Christians and Jews still had to wear distinctive clothing but not yellow badges. (Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.) Itsmejudith 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism
There is much discussion of antisemitism in this article. Can someone point out sources that explicitly talk about this in the context of antisemitism. Thanks.Bless sins 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thalers
From the timeline: ";1710: Frederick William I of Prussia abolished the mandatory Jewish yellow patch in return for a payment of 8,000 thaler ($360,000 in today's money) each"

- The thaler concerned (used as a unit of account) was the reichsthaler, defined as 1/12 of a Cologne mark, which was 233.856 grams of silver.

So: 233.856 /12 = 19.488 g. per thaler, x 8,000 = 155.9 kg = 343.7 modern pounds = 5500 oz of silver, which at the current rather high spot price of c.USD 13.60 = $75,000 as the modern value of the same amount of silver, bearing in mind that silver was much cheaper in those days, when people walked round with it in their pockets. Johnbod 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim countries
Please note my comments in the discussion page of Sumptuary laws which call for reliable quotations. At issue are some lines which are duplicated between these two articles.--P00r (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added comments on that talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs to be rewritten to give a synoptic overview of the way in which the distinctive signs attached to Jewish clothing evolved over time. The article suggests that over the course of history this categorisation has been instigated predominantly to shame Jews - this isn't necessarily the case. Though rooted in anti-semitism, there were pragmatic reasons too. Lateran IV for example (mentioned in the text), says the following: ''In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. '' Strict laws governed the interaction between Jews and Christians. In the thirteenth century, Christians needed to be able to identify Jews not merely to avoid prohibited sexual relationships, but in order to identify those members of the community most likely to be involved in usury. It's also worth noting that the Bible itself calls for Jews to don distinctive clothing. Numbers 15:38 reads: "speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue". Only once Jews' dress became less distinctive was legislation introduced. --CharlieRCD (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing marks in Muslim countries
Bat Ye'or is reliable source.She is expert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

An expert who was rejected by her peers during the 70s and 80s until Bernard Lewis mentioned her in one of his works, and people started give her attention, no? Faro0485 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Error
Vichy France did not enforced any law regarding the Yellow star. For france, it was a German law (May 1942) enforced only in the occupied/North zone. Vichy enforced another law (a red rubber stamp "JEW" on the identities document. See for instance : http://emma.passicos.free.fr/KaminskyWeb/Photos/images/enfantjuive.jpg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnificent7 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable mentioning of Finland
In the timeline under 1940, the passage ends "The same is true for Finland and Norway.", saying no govermental orders were issued to force jewish people to wear a yellow badge. I question whether it is relevant to have Finland in this sentence. Finland was never, unlike Norway and Denmark, occupied by Germany. Finland fought together with Germany against the Soviet Union in the so called continuation war and was never officially an ally of the country. If Finland is relevant to mention, so would also other Nordic countries which were never occupied by Germany be: Sweden and Iceland. I propose to remove Finland from the sentence. /111027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the whole sentence - it doesn't appear particularly relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for doing so. I do however personally think there's a point in mentioning Norway, as it was actually occupied by Germany. /111028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.250.36 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

yellow badge POV
"It is intended to be a badge of shame associated with antisemitism.[ This is a subjective stance and does not belong in a wikipedia article. This sentence needs to be changed or removed.  It is referenced from a Jewish publication that may have an agenda.  I suggest removing it as The yellow badges can only be said to be a badge to differentiate Jews form not Jewish. One can not, in a speculative fashion, extrapolate intention of the forced badge wearing without making broad an erroneous assumptions.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you name another group that was forced to wear something similar?  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading dating on Nazi Europe subsection
As it stands on the page, the timeline implies that German Jews and Jews within the Greater Reich area had to wear the yellow badge from 1st September 1941. In actuality, as attested by the citation of the transcript of the original police decree, although the decree was issued on 1st September, it did not come into force until 19th September. The timeline should therefore be altered to reflect the true progression of events. In case any further evidence is needed, I suggest looking at Victor Klemperer's diary entry of 19th September 1941 and those leading up to it as translated into English and published in I Shall Bear Witness. --SaraFL (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to add settings for an archive bot to work
This might clear out dead discussions and improve accessibility.

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained a no where near excessive 37 KB Gregkaye (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs more generic title
I am not sure the title "Yellow Badge" does the content of the article justice, given that it covers sumptuary laws, markers and badges of different colors and shapes through other periods and places of history. It sometimes comes up oddly, e.g. articles referring to "red badges" used in Medieval Iberia that link to an article titled "yellow badge" is a little confusing. Surely we can come up with a more generic title for the article? I am not sure what the preferred title is, but I'd like to just open up a discussion on this. Hopefully, we can gather some suggestions for better titles. Walrasiad (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Jewish badge" redirects here, and is easy to reference. It's probably the best title for the full historical account, though "Yellow badge" is better known, because of the Nazi use. I'd support swopping round. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought about "Jewish badge" but wasn't particularly happy since the term "Jewish" is possessive, making it seem the badge was issued by Jews rather than to Jews. It really should be something like "Jew badge", or "Jew identification badge". But not sure if that sounds too awkward. Also, it goes beyond badges to sumptuary laws (hats, etc.), but "Jew sumptuary markers" may sound a little arcane. Walrasiad (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation
There should be a disambiguation. There is a special Ner Tamid form which is called by Jews Judenstern. Informationskampagne (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Official name of the 'faux-Hebrew' font borne on the yellow star?
It reads:

"The requirement to wear the Star of David with the word Jude (German for Jew) inscribed in faux-Hebrew letters..."

How about cutting out the bollocks and just naming the font. For God's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.21.250 (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the font has a name? It's "Jude" written in such a way as to resemble Hebrew.  Do you think that the Nazis opened their laptops, fired up Word, and went through the font list until they found the one they wanted?  Or maybe that they had to download it from the Internet? What are you thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yellow badge. 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/20081024212928/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/MedievalSocialTO/Clothing.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/MedievalSocialTO/Clothing.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035/karolinenstrasse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024212928/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/MedievalSocialTO/Clothing.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/MedievalSocialTO/Clothing.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jodenster van kledij.jpg}} to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: will be appearing as picture of the day on January 27, 2021. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2021-01-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Andrei (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wording implies Nazi rulers were Christian rulers
The phrase in the first paragraph, "during certain periods by the ruling Christians and Muslims, especially in Nazi Germany", appears to imply that the rulers in Nazi Germany are part of the "ruling Christians and Muslims" group, which would imply that they were Christian rulers since they obviously weren't Muslim. The addition of an "and" would change the meaning, I believe: "during certain periods by the ruling Christians and Muslims, and especially in Nazi Germany", which would imply that they were a third group separate from "ruling Christians" and "ruling Muslims". There may be less awkward ways to fix the wording. As to whether the Nazi rulers could actually be considered Christian rulers, this would certainly be at best controversial, looking at other Wikipedia articles ("Historians regard Hitler as having anti-Christian views", "A number of historians maintain that the Nazis had a general covert plan, which some argue existed before the Nazis' rose to power,to destroy Christianity within the Reich."), and probably an insult to most Christian readers.

68.5.187.44 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree, and have changed it. Jontel (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Error regarding France
The sentence

'Jews in occupied France were ordered to wear a yellow star by the Vichy French government.'

is incorrect. It was a directive of the German Occupation authorities, which the Vichy government had opposed, even though, the Vichy police then enforced the German decision (distributing the star and in some cases arresting Jews who failed to wear it).

This is explained on the website of Yad Vashem, the Israeli holocaust memorial:

Distinctive Jewish badge (yellow Star) that the Jews of France were forced to wear on their clothing in accordance with the directives of the German occupation. In the territories of France occupied by the Germans, Jews aged six and over were forced to wear a yellow star badge on their clothing on the left side on the chest. The badge was printed with the word Juif ("Jew" in French). In the unoccupied zone of France, under Vichy rule, the government refused to enforce the order, fearing that the population would resist the imposition of a distinctive badge on the Jewish citizens of France. Even after November 1942, when the whole of France was occupied by the Germans, they refrained from enforcing the wearing of the Jewish star in Vichy for fear that it would arouse resistance among the population.

(copied from https://www.yadvashem.org/artifacts/featured/jewish-badges/france.html)

Another reason the current presentation is incorrect is that the Vichy French government was not an 'Axis Power' (hence making the current phrasing under the title "Germany and Axis Powers" incorrect, unless it is corrected to mention it was a German decision).

I propose the following rewrite: 'Jews in occupied France were order to wear a yellow star by the German occupation authorities'.

To be clear: I'm not attempting to whitewash the Vichy French government's very real crimes, just to improve accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1899Vic (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clear from German military administration in occupied France during World War II that French authorities in occupied France had no independent authority and were obliged in general to comply with German instructions. From the agreement: 'In the occupied region of France, the German Reich exercises all of the rights of an occupying power. The French government undertakes to facilitate in every way possible the implementation of these rights, and to provide the assistance of the French administrative services to that end. The French government will immediately direct all officials and administrators of the occupied territory to comply with the regulations of, and to collaborate fully with, the German military authorities.' I have changed this article. Jontel (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Jodenster van kledij.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Jodenster van kledij.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 27, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-01-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)