Talk:Yerida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Yerida is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. 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 Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Israel Portal
Yerida is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Israel because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Israel}} template, removing {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

I suggest to redirect to aliyah, "yerida(h)" is mentioned there. aliyah is immigration to Israel ("going up"), yerida is emigration ("going down"). Aleph4 21:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My latest additions needs type proofing

The latest additions were translated from the paralell hebrew wiki page. grammar fixes are needed. Acidburn24m (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halakhah Section

I deleted the halakhah bit for two important, and to my knowledge undisputed, problems. First, they are anachronisms. The article was using Israel simultaneously as referring to the halakhic entity Eretz Yisrael and to the political entity Medinat Yisrael. They do not meen the same thing, and to use them interchangeably in that section is anachronistic and misleading. For example a Jew who moves from points in southern Lebanon to Eilat has left the hlachic entity Eretz Yisrael, but immigrated to Medinat Yisrael. A Jew who leaves Ashkelon to build a home in Tyre would be considered to have made yeridah the way Israelis use the term, though he has violated no halakhah. Basejumper2 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Additions

I'm new to wikipedia and I seem to have crossed over to original research. That will eventually be deleted if I can't find the cites. I am on a learning curve regarding contributions and would appreciate any comments regarding contributions to wikipedia.Pini00001 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so as well but I didn't want to say anything yet not to disturb your creative writing in the article. I would advise you to refreain from general assumptions unless they are very relaible and you can cite them. Acidburn24m (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystifying objection

This article discusses emigration from Israel and introduces two historical claims ... at least one of which is well known to be in more than a certain amount of doubt. To this end, I added the following to the article:

Tel Aviv University historian, Professor Shlomo Sand, under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, argues that the (Roman) AD70 exile of the Jewish people is actually a Christian myth - divine punishment of the Jews for having rejected the gospel of Jesus. In his book "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, Hebrew, March 2008) he sets out to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. He says that the Romans did not exile entire populations and physically could not have done so in any case.[1]
  1. ^ When and How the Jewish People was invented? Book Review (Hebrew). Haaretz 21st March 2008. Verified 9th May 2008.

I'd be very confident that some entry of this kind belongs in this article, that there can be no justification for objecting to, let alone reason for removing this particular addition - and certainly not with the the very nonrresponsive claim that it's a fringe theory. It's plainly not a fringe theory and I call on User:GHcool to explain himself and self-revert. PRtalk 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Every Jewish history scholar I've ever read agrees that the First Jewish-Roman War was a real event (not a "Christian myth") that left a lasting impression on the ancient Jews, which developed into today's modern Jews. Scholars who deny these facts are called Jewish history deniers. They do not belong on Wikipedia because, like Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they are violate WP:Fringe. --GHcool (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you obviously have nothing dealing with the expulsion at issue, and have removed an excellent RS calling it a myth, I'm still waiting for you to self-revert. I would further note that the part of the section you've left is undated, unreferenced, confusing (there are 2 quite separate events with likely 100s of years between them) and badly written it is doubly puzzling why you would appeart to have followed me to an article you've never previously edited in 3 years of it's existence. PRtalk 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I added a reference, but I agree with you that it is rather awkward to have the exiles of antiquity in the article on yerida since the article deals almost exclusively with post-1948 emigration. Perhaps it would be in order to delete the whole section. What do you think? --GHcool (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it should be deleted. Acidburn24m (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I came to this article to improve it, to add good information, as I've striven to do throughout the project. Mysteriously, this good information was removed and a highly partisan (even propaganda) reference was added (sub-title according the Amazon review "Why Israel must maintain exclusive control over Jerusalem"). The yerida of the Roman period is of great (even central) interest to the topic. Unless you can point me to another article where this topic is dealt with in more detail, then of course the information belongs here. PRtalk 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As per PalestineRemembered's request: Jewish diaspora, Jewish history, History of the Jews in the Land of Israel. I hope I don't see any denialist/fringe sources or anything that violates WP:Undue weight in any of these articles in the next few days.
Also, despite PalestineRemembered's claim, the subtitle of the book is Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. This is what is written on the book's title page and on Amazon and is reflected in the footnote of this article.--GHcool (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The situation you appear to wish to justify is that a synopsis (taken from a Haaretz review) of a book by a Tel Aviv professor of history accessible to all of us, confirming that many historians consider this expulsion to be a myth, will be dismissed as fringe and removed, whereas a work that is clearly intended as a polemic will be inserted in its place. Perhaps you'd like to confirm my understanding and that this is your intention. Perhaps you'd also like to comment on the fact that you'd never edited this article in its three years, yet you acted to exclude the new, academic, information I wanted to see in there - almost as if you'd wiki-stalked me here. PRtalk 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the criticism that Gold's book isn't the best source for the information is a fair one. I'll try to find a better one within the next 24-48 hours. --GHcool (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you think that that is good enough. Even if serious historians still make the claim that you do, other historians clearly think it's a myth. Both points of view need to be in there. PRtalk 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on exile under Romans

This article discusses emigration from Israel and introduces two historical claims ... of which there seems to be some doubt. To this end, I would like to add the following to the article:

Tel Aviv University historian, Professor Shlomo Sand, under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, argues that the (Roman) AD70 exile of the Jewish people is actually a Christian myth - divine punishment of the Jews for having rejected the gospel of Jesus. In his book "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, Hebrew, March 2008) he sets out to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. He says that the Romans did not exile entire populations and physically could not have done so in any case.[1]
  1. ^ When and How the Jewish People was invented? Book Review (Hebrew). Haaretz 21st March 2008. Verified 9th May 2008.

I'd be confident that this claim is very far from being "Fringe" and some entry of this kind belongs in this article.

This RfC is raised in order to sample the opinions on editors previously not involved in this topic, though the factual knowledge of previously involved editors will be very welcome after the uninvolved editors have an opportunity to have their say. PRtalk 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how one professor's opinion passed inclusion criteria, per WP:UNDUE. You have so far failed to provide sources for exactly who else supports this fringe theory, and even if you do, it would be difficult to assert their notability. So far, it seems that Shlomo Sand is completely non-notable, so even if he offered a non-fringe theory, his opinion would probably not be included in favor of other more known historians.
All of this compared to hundreds if not more historians, who have all come to the same conclusion, the one currently prevalent in the world. So, how exactly does one NN professor's opinion satisfy WP:UNDUE? His opinion on the issue isn't even as widespread as Holocaust denial, which is a fringe theory as well.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Here from the RfC. "Yerida" is AFAIK, a fairly modern term for the opposite of "Aliya". I do not think that this article needs to discuss any emigration from the land prior to the rise of Zionism and the first Aliyas. It most certainly should not discuss exile, which is not emigration. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Canadian Monkey. The article seems to center around Israel. I suggest the "Emigration from the land of Israel before Zionism" and "According to the Halakha" be put together under "Background", and so it will become clear that this article is about Israel and not about Jewish history. The theory itself is a maverick one, but it's not WP:FRINGE. It is WP:UNDUE, however, and will be even more so under my suggestion. I also think Sand's theory would be more appropriate under Anti-Zionism. -- Nudve (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell people what this article should cover - however, I can see a problem of this article and others containing a story that at least a portion of the academic world considers to be a myth. PRtalk 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, no "portion" of the academic world considers the established history of the Jewish people to be a myth. One fringe academic does not constitute a whole "portion" of the academic world. --GHcool (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

More than Sand consider the Jewish people a myth. Nonetheless, using Sand would only show quite distinct bias. His particular claims are patently absurd. He claims that the notion (note, not the existence) of a Jewish nation is late. Clearly it is not. Whenever the Bible was written, it describes Israel as a nation in numerous places. Zionist ideology did not create the idea of the Jewish nation, it created the idea of political nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauerskates (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - are you claiming that the Romans did exile the population of Israel in either 70CE or 135CE? Prof Sand claims they did not, and the Haaretz book review claims that Sand has taken his lead from other historians. (Rather like Israel Finkelstein was standing on the shoulders of his predecessors when he said that David and Solomon were "minor chieftains" - as far as I know that's 100% accepted). What is your understanding of the present knowledge? PRtalk 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum about Jewish history, but a discussion on how to improve the article - the current dispute apparently being whether Sand is a reliable source, and whether he satisfies WP:UNDUE. Another dispute is whether ancient Jewish emigration classifies as Yerida. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We have the book of a Professor of History at Tel Aviv University, backed apparently by other historians, with a revised 'modern' understanding of this history, and the old one that is represented by Dore Gold (a writer who, amongst other things, tries to persuade people that the correct term is "Disputed Territory" instead of "Occupied Territory" as agreed by everyone else in the world). If this was a contest as to which one is an RS and which one isn't, then Prof Sand would be in and Dore Gold would be out. PRtalk 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Dore Gold is a well-known researcher and public figure, whereas Sand is completely non-notable. You have not addressed the most important points: How is Sand notable? Who are those 'other historians', and how are they notable? Regardless of whether they're notable, are there any other historians who came to the same conclusions as Sand? If so, why do you believe that they satisfy WP:UNDUE (a policy which you don't seem to address in your argument at all)? Etc. etc. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered has quite a task ahead of him if he plans on continuing in this line of argument. He must prove that Sand's understanding of Jewish history is held by the majority (or at least a significant minority) of scholars of Jewish history. Another route he could take is proving that the entire body of literature on Jewish history up until Sand's book has been overturned. I don't believe he will succeed by either route without resorting to some form of denialism or intellectual dishonesty, both of which are tactics which haven't helped him in disputes he's had in the past. --GHcool (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here from RfC. Sand is clearly RS, as scholars often are without having to be notable. Not sure whether this is a minority view. If it is new then the scholarly consensus may not have had time to re-form around it. My thought is that it is OK to add it attributed to "one scholar has argued". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight. --GHcool (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting a section

I propose we delete the section with the heading "Emigration from the land of Israel before Zionism." I've never heard the Hebrew word yerida used to describe pre-Zionism emigration, and the sources cited don't refer to those emigrations as yeridot either. If I do not get a response within the next day or two, I will delete it myself. --GHcool (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, delete. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. -- Nudve (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. It's a modern term for Zionist-era emigration Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm deleting it. Thanks to all who responded. --GHcool (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derogatory term

Not sure where that came from, yedida is not a derogatory term in Hebrew, but the most widely-used term for a Jew who lived in Israel but left. There's no other term for this in Israel (same as an immigrant is called oleh). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"derogatory" is too strong a word, although from a pure Zionist perspective, it is a negative term. Anyway, it shouldn't be a part of the term's definition in the lead. - Nudve (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've previously brought excellent RS to this article, only to see my edit removed entirely, apparently in favour of a source that regularily seeks to defend an ideological interpretation of the known facts.
On a question of opinion (rather than fact) viz whether the word Yerida is "derogatory" or not, a lower standard of evidence applies and I'd like to offer this 2002 article quoting a "sabra" (native born Israeli) to the community for its consideration: "Twenty years ago it was taboo, shameful, for Israelis to leave the country," Tali said. "Today we hear that there are 300,000 Israelis just in New York City. No one is ashamed anymore. Even the older generation is not ashamed to tell their kids to go and to urge them not to come back."[1] PRtalk 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The source doesn't really say that it's a derogatory term, but rather that there was, in the past, a derogatory stigma for yordim, as expemplified in the word itself. I guess something like this can be inserted in the article, but it should not be in the lead. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)