Talk:Old Yishuv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Correct name[edit]

The name of this article needs to be changed to "Old Yishuv," which is the term used in all scholarly literature on the subject. As it is, it is meaningless - and grammatically incorrect (it is Hayishuv Hayashan in Hebrew).--Gilabrand (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Old Yishuv is not English and not Hebrew, "Yishuv haYashan" is the correct name, "ha" in the hebrew means "the" which is not supported in English titles.

Shoteh (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Search Google. -HagiMalachi (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yishuv Hayashan is Heblish. It's either Hayishuv Hayashan (see Hebrew Wikipedia article )or Old Yishuv. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Old Yishuv is the most know expression.
It is widely used by scholars (600+ google book hits).
I would remove "(Eretz Yisrael)" that doesn't bring anything...
Ceedjee (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added Eretz Yisrael is that the page move for Old Yishuv on its own didn't work. I don't know why. The only other article with that word in it is just plain "Yishuv"--Gilabrand (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just tried. Indeed, it doens't work.
It is because Old Yishuv already exists.
To handle this properly, we must ask a sysop to take care of this.
Shoteh, are you convinced by google book hits and both Gilabrand and my arguments ? Or do you have some other points to put forward ?
Ceedjee (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the way Gilabrand put it now is just good, it may also relax the intentions of :::HagiMalachi.

Shoteh (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. Except I don't agree.
Why Eretz Yisrael ? Old Yishuv has no link with it.
Ceedjee (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'no link'? --Redaktor (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that there are no several "old yishuv"'s.
There is no need to disambiguate by Eretz Yisrael, as if it would be that one and not the "other one".
More, Eretz Yisrael and Old Yishuv are different matters. 1st is a territory; 2nd is a people's community...
Ceedjee (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it is this. If you talk about the "Yishuv HaYashan" everybody knows exactly what you're talking about, and there is no need to explain where that existed. But "Old Yishuv", I think those who have never heard it, might ask "the old yishuv of where?"; it might mean the old yishuv in London or the old yishuv in Brownsville or the the alter heim which refers to the Jewish Yishuv in Eastern Europe before WWII. So Yishuv HaYashan makes things simpler. But if Old Yishuv is what will remain, and I don't mind it staying although I would prefer Yishuv haYashan; I still think the addition of "Eretz Yisroel" isn't needed as old yishuv as a noun doesn't really refer to anywhere else. Itzse (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Old Yishuv does not refer to a geographical place, but a community. So it did not "consist" of cities. The way someone has now rephrased the lead is misleading, and the English sounds more like Yinglish.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Somebody is placing tags but is not explaining what's his problem is. It sounds that he is a Zionist supporter and he would like everything on his way. HagiMalachi (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem - as explained in the tags - is with quality (of the English wording, usage & grammar), not with point of view. A review of the editing history will show that much of the original text was almost unintelligible, and much work had to be done to "translate" it into proper English while trying to preserve the original intent. This involved some guesswork and "mindreading". There is more work to be done. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


The article reads as follows:

The vast majority of the settlers were wiped out by the Crusaders who arrived in 1219, and the few survivors were allowed to live only in Acre (עַכּוֹ, Akko). descendents of them aren't known, indicating that if there were any survivors, they blended with the original Jewish residents, who are called Mustarabim or Maghrebim, but more precisely Murishkes.

Is Murishkes what they happened to be called; or is this a practical joke? Itzse (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article sounds like a practical joke.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's our job to make it into a normal article. Itzse (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How funny it sounds, this was how they were called, please follow the references. The word is said to have been derived from Murry, I have forgotten the exact meaning in Arabic. Somebody makes practical jokes on my account, but forgets to admit when he is wrong. HagiMalachi (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no reference for this. Sounds like a joke to me—murashke is Yiddish for ant. --Redaktor (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe derived from Mashriq?- Shoteh (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hovevei Zion[edit]

The article reads:

The plans of Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalischer of Thorn were very controversial,[1] and even his colleague and biggest supporter Rabbi Eliyah Gutmacher of Greiditz later discontinued his support.

A source is given as HaLevanon 8 – no 21

Does anyone know what the Greiditzer as he was called writes him? Itzse (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No! The source from HaLevenaon is that it was contreversial. The source for discontinued support is the Letter by the Kalscer to the Greditzer, please follow sources!. HagiMalachi (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the sources; but I don't understand; the letter is from Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalisher; and the Greiditzer is the one who dropped support of Rabbi Kalisher? I'm interested in what exactly does the letter say. Itzse (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kalscher is complaining on the discontinued support, and writes on himself that he remanined single in the battle. He claims that the Greiditzer discontinued the support only because Rabbi Meir Aurbach was against, and that it is not right because Eretz Yisroel doesn't belong solely to the existing Rabbanim of Eretz Yisroel, but to the Jews of Diapora as well.HagiMalachi (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I never knew that the Greiditzer took back his support. BTW, it might be appropriate to note that the Greiditzer was one of the greatest talmidim of Rabbi Akiva Eger. Itzse (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Practical Jokes[edit]

Someone here is in the mood of practical jokes, and wrongly found the Wikipedia and especially this article which I created, as a the appropriate place. For example, what's the tag here about citation in time when there is even a link to a book in English which is available online through Google Books? Does his articles have so good references? HagiMalachi (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Aliyah of 1211[edit]

The paragraph after a few edits of mine now reads:

The aliyah of 300 members headed by the Tosafists from England and France in 1211 struggled very hard on arrival in Eretz Yisroel; as they had no financial support and no prospect of making a living. The vast majority of these and earlier residents were wiped out by the Crusaders who arrived in 1219, and the few survivors were only allowed to live in Acre (עַכּוֹ, Akko). Descendents of them aren't known, indicating that if there were any survivors, they blended with the original Jewish residents, who are called Mustarabim or Maghrebim, but more precisely Murishkes.

What I don't understand is the last sentence. Did the Crusaders spare the Mustarabim? Itzse (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's clear that the Mustarabim survived, the only question is "how?". One possible answer is that there were quite enough of them so even if many were killed there were more candidates for survival, a maybe more likely answer is that since the Mustarabim used to live in villages like the Bedouins, they were away from the eyes and not targeted for execution. The newcommers - in contrary - were concetrated in big municipalities as the introduction reads.HagiMalachi (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'll revert my edit regarding this; thanks. Itzse (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs clarification[edit]

According to the intro., the "Old Yishuv" (pre-1897) is pre-state. But isn't the "New Yishuv" (post-1897) also pre-state (for another 50 years)? What distinguishes them? If "Old Yishuv" refers to the pre-state Jewish community, as is stated, does it include the New Yishuv? Expert help needed to make the lead paragraph less confusing. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The more acurate label should be "pre-Zionist" HagiMalachi (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That explains it. Thanks. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead isn't perfect yet; it now reads:

Yishuv haYashan' (Hebrew: יישוב הישן‎‎) (Old Yishuv) refers to the pre-Zionist Jewish community in the Holy Land. It consisted of the "Four Holy Cities", namely Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron, plus Petah Tikva, established in 1878. This term is used to distinguish between the old-time residents of Eretz Yisrael and those arriving after the First Zionist Congress in 1897 for the purpose of renewing a Jewish State, eighteen centuries after the previous one had been destroyed. The newer arrivals and their settlements are known as the New Yishuv.

What about those who arrived prior to 1897 for the purpose of renewing a Jewish State? Are they from the old Yishuv or the new? Also what about Rishon LeZion?

On the other hand; there were those born in the old Yishuv, who were for the renewal of a Jewish State. Itzse (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is, that we are speaking in generalities; but still the lead needs to reflect this. Itzse (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Petah Tikva[edit]

I was the one to add Petah Tikva to what is considered the Yishuv haYashan, as it was founded by Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin, hardly a Zionist. But I see that (in Halutzim) that Petah Tikva is considered the first proper Zionist settlement; maybe in retrospect. It needs to be straightened out. Itzse (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Weren't all the Jews expelled from Palestine in the year 70?[edit]

The existence of the Old Yishuv sure poses some problems for the Ashkenazi Khazars and their version of events. (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

First, DNA testing has ALREADY proven the Khazar theory false. Second, the existence of the Old Yishuv strengthens the Zionist version of events for both Ashekanzim and Sephardim. The ONLY version of events it poses a problem for are the so-called "Palestinians" and their dual lies of being indigenous and Jews and Muslims living peacefully together before Zionism.

DionysosElysees (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians have been proven to be indigenous even by Israeli geneticists and academics like Dr. Ariella Oppenheim; [1] that Palestinians "descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai."

As for "Jewish genetics" (putting aside that Jews are not a "race" but rather a religion". Many points can be made; on Khazars it has been documented that [2] "Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Levites" Nicolas Wade 2003

"They say that 52 percent of Levites of Ashkenazi origin have a particular genetic signature that originated in Central Asia, although it is also found less frequently in the Middle East. The ancestor who introduced it into the Ashkenazi Levites could perhaps have been from the Khazars, a Turkic tribe whose king converted to Judaism in the eighth or ninth century, the researchers suggest.

Their reasoning is that the signature, a set of DNA variations known as R1a1, is common in the region north of Georgia that was once occupied by the Khazar kingdom. The signature did reach the Near East, probably before the founding of the Jewish community, but it is still rare there. The scholars say they cannot exclude the possibility that a Jewish founder brought the signature on his Y chromosome to the Ashkenazi population, but they consider that a less likely explanation."

Also Professor Shlomo Sand notes; "As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of 'Judaization of the country' in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew."

The Khazar theory has not been supposedly "refuted" as even Jewish academic and genetic research Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor himself admits.

Other issues on "Jewish genetics" (putting aside that unless one is a neo-Nazi who believes Jews are a "race" or something, rather than just a religion, as it is easily demonstrable that the first person to claim the Jews were a "race" and not simply a religion was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany, see also Rabbi Joachim Prinz). "Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors." The Khazars were in the exact region where Armenia is in the Caucasus just south of Russia. And also [3] "Early studies of mitochondrial DNA reported that Jewish women, unlike Jewish men, did not correlate well with one another globally. ... In the absence of rabbis to perform conversions, they [Jewish immigrants to new lands] married local women who, while consenting to live as Jews, were not halakhically Jewish." Which presents a large problem for Zionist mythology as the definition of "who is a Jew" supposedly (if viewed from a false "racial" prism is view in "Orthodox Judaism" as being only from the mother (aka matrilineal) so if all the "Jewish women" are CONVERTS whatever the father's background is doesn't matter at all (by Zionist mythology's own claims).

This is noted at "The Non-Semitic Origins of Contemporary Jews" [4]

"Third, so far genetic research on the Semitic claim tends to focus more on the non-recombining parts of the male Y-Chromosome rather than on the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA of the Jews, which has defined 'Jewishness' since Talmudic times."Historylover4 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also on this general issue; "Because a detailed technical critique of these genetic findings requires a detailed scrutiny of parameters such as sample size, genetic markers, and population allele, let’s make a broad epistemological critique of the sample selection, research assumptions, and political implications of these findings. One problem of these findings is their contradiction when claiming that the Jews are at the same time genetically “closer” to the Turks and to the Arabs. Another consists of the kind of assumptions upon which the research questions were formulated and the samples were selected. First, we do no have for sure any genetic material or DNA from the Biblical Israelites to compare and contrast with any existing genetic material or DNA from contemporary Jews. There is no proof that Michael Hammer’s “cohanim markers” were those of Moses’ brother, Aaron. Second, the Jews (like the Muslims and the Christians) were historically bound by religion (and are highly mixed), not by race or genes. Today the percentage of U.S. Jews under 35 who are married to non-Jews is 41 percent (Goodstein 2003). ... Fourth, since the bulk of contemporary Jews came recently from the only region of the world in which there was indeed a geographically delimited and historically documented Jewish empire, the selection of research population samples should relate primarily (if not exclusively) to the historical geography of the medieval Jewish-led Khazar Empire and the modern Jewish Pale of Settlement (see Figure 5). The Turkic origin and mass conversion of the Khazars to Judaism are well documented by both medieval and modern scholars (Ibn al-Faqih and Hadi 1996, 593; Ibn Fadlan and Ghaybah 1994; Halévy 1935 and 1936; Ibn Khaldun 1982, 129; Spector 1968, 5; Bradley 1992; Dunlop 1954, ix, x). Fifth, some of the assumptions used by geneticists are themselves based on even weaker assumptions such as “A Middle Eastern origin of the Jewish gene pool is generally assumed because of the detailed documentation of Jewish history and religion” (Hammer et al 2000, 6773).

Additional legitimate questions could also be raised about the ethnic identity, personal motivation, and political dedication of the various genetic research teams, especially the way they wrap their research projects and published findings into broad human genetic studies while they seem to be focused mainly on the Semitic claim."[5]Historylover4 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

PLO view in the lead[edit]

Regarding this two edits ([6], [7]): I don't think PLO view has a place in the lead, since the article is about historical phenomenon, not now-day politics. PLO view of this historical phenomenon is not of significant importance to no one but PLO itself. I'd bet this information is also not found in any RS on the article subject, in particular Google books search results are not encouraging. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 10:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And I see the PLO view has been deleted again: [8]. Which establishes if not consensus, at least majority, I guess? -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If the PLO view is going to be added then quotes of PLO members claiming "Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together before Zionism" should be included followed by a list of all the massacres carried out upon the indigenous Jewish population by the settling Muslims.

ChasteRoueταλκ 09:29, 20, March 2012 (UTC)

"chasteroue" has been shown to also be the now blocked (as well) user "dionysuselysses". The Palestinians are confirmed by even Israeli academics and genetic researchers like Dr. Ariella Oppenheim to be descended from the indigenous people of the land. Regarding the Palestinian Arabs of today, Dr. Ariella Oppenheim's professional genetic research noted; "The results match historical accounts that some Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."[9]Historylover4 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The defintion of Old Yishuv[edit]

"The Old Yishuv (Hebrew: היישוב הישן‎, ha-Yishuv ha-Yashan) is a term used to refer to the Jewish communities, with specific economic and social structure, which had lived in Ottoman Southern Syria (Eretz Yisrael), from 16th century "

This is incorrect definition as the term Old Yishuv has nothing to do with 16th century.Tritomex (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See this [10]
For the 400 years of Ottoman rule in Jerusalem there was a Jewish community living inside the walls of the Old City. The community, which we call the “Old Yishuv,” was not a single, cohesive unit. Until the middle of the 19th century the community consisted mainly of Sephardic Jews, descendants of the exiles from Spain and others. Beginning with the mid-18th century Ashkenazi Jews begin to settle in the city, but not for extended periods.
The Old Yishuv is hence something to emerge since the early Ottoman period. It is however mostly documented in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the lead per source, without mentioning exact onsetm but saying throughout the Ottoman period.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1517 events in Hebron and Safed[edit]

Users are welcome to participate in discussion on renaming and merging of 1517 Safed pogrom and 1517 Hebron pogrom (dealing with attacks on Jewish communities there) at Talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Rename. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Well, just one correction on Zero's revert - Ottoman Palestine apparently redirects to Ottoman Syria (not Southern Syria) for the last 2 years almost.GreyShark (dibra) 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, referring to the area as :
  • southern Syrian provinces (Palestine) throughout the Ottoman period
is a good solution.
At the time, there was no real Palestinian nationalism and the area West of Jordan River was not seen as an entity but rather as port of the Syria area. Nevertheless, adding "(Palestine)" permits the readers to understand in using the alternative wording used by scholar less specialized on the Ottoman period.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for support, however i'm still concerned that some Jews (especially religious, like Chesdovi) might view this solution incorrect, since the definition of Old Yishuv was based on residence in the Land of Israel, which is not the same as Palestine (region), even though there is some correlation.GreyShark (dibra) 16:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I doubt there is an entity closer to Land of Israel than Palestine (region). Personnaly, given the "blurring" around both limits of these entities, I would be unable to state the difference. So we have to take temporal references.
I think Syrian Provinces is a good choice because at thetime (Ottoman period), it was the way the area was defined.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The 'Land of Israel' is a relatively unfamiliar infra-Jewish term (eretz yisrael') accommodated to occasional usage in English, as opposed to the standard historical term in Western languages, Palestine. The two are not on par for a global encyclopedia where the default term is based on English narrative usage, and for all periods, Palestine should be the default term, which can then be finessed if sources so say, by indicating the temporal term used by the reigning hegemon at any particular juncture.Throughout the 19th century (viz.George Robinson,Travels in Palestine and Syria, 1837 and hundreds of other titles), all ethnographic and geographical writers separated the two (for emotive reasons as Christians also, since Syria had none of the religious resonance of Palestine, the secular term for their 'Holy Land'. Eretz Israel (Land of Israel)is the Jewish version of 'Holy Land' and we should use neither religious term per WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In addition, eretz israel in religious terms was of difficult definition topologically. Indeed as a sacred space it had no agreed on topological boundaries. One solution ignored is to write 'Palestine Eretz Israel' as in 'Old Yishuv: Palestine Eretz Israel's Jewish Community before 1882'. Judith Winther, 'The Hebrew Revolution and the Revolution of the Hebrew Language between the 1880s and the 1930s' in Egon Keck, Svend Søndergaard, Ellen Wulff (eds.) [Living Waters: Scandinavian Orientalistic Studies Presented to Frede Løkkegaard,] Museum Tusculanum Press, 1990 pp.397-406 p.404.Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As usual, "Palestine" gets replaced and right now I removed one of the edits that did that.

This has been discussed many times and several good replies have been given here too. There is nothing POV with saying "Palestine", a term used by the vast majority of scholars (including many Israeli scholars) and defined in a clear way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As a person who often gets kicked by both angry Israelis and Palestinians i would like to point out that the source utilized for the "location" in lead section says only Ottoman Jerusalem, not mentioned neither Palestine nor Land of Israel. I'm in favor of using both terms if sourced, but my impression is that sources is not the real issue here.GreyShark (dibra) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The source in the lead says "Ottoman rule in Jerusalem" but I think you know there are plenty of sources that call it "Palestine" as it is the standard term for the area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You are falling into WP:CK arguments, which is clearly not helpful here.GreyShark (dibra) 09:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)