Jump to content

Talk:Aliyah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iskandar323 (talk | contribs) at 08:01, 1 February 2023 (Assessment (C): banner shell, Judaism, Israel, Palestine, Jewish history, British Empire, Economics, Geography, Globalization, Human rights, International relations, Sociology (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAliyah was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Felicia595.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wider discussion?

What about the controversy surrounding Aliyah? How about the debate over allowing Russian Immigrants in? What about the debate over quotas? What about the refusal of allowing non-Jewish people, including Palestinians, to immigrate? Mr100percent

Free passage

While I was in Germany, I saw something on CNN about the Israeli government giving free tickets to Jews who wish to live in Israel.- B-101 16:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would 1830's be 'Pre/Proto-First' Aliyah?

Jerusalem Growth

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia, Edition VIII, 1910)

"..5. Present condition of the city (1905)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century Large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total

1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000

1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ...... The First Official Ottoman Census (abu) Many sources for this number

1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 ......... ..Second """"""""""

1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ......... Third/last, detailed in NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia above

1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300

1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400

1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm"]http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

21st century Aliyah

Since 2000, Jewish immigration to Israel/Palestine has fallen by more than half compared to the late 90s. In 2006, they numbered less than twenty thousand, a nine percent drop compared to a year earlier.

This drop should be referenced in the article, along with the Jewish Agency numbers for the past six years, which are availible. Avoiding this dramatic decline is part of a subtle, but pervasive tone of boosterism that compromises the the objectivity of the article.

The russian alyah being almost over, the drop is no surprise. Interestingly, the number of Western Jews has increased in the 2000's, in particular from the USA and France. Benjil 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the statistics and its in one of the sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.37.65 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Land of Israel"

"Land of Israel" in the lead sentence seems to me to be an anachronism, and one that is almost certainly here with the intent of making a political point. Our article Land of Israel makes the claim that "During the British mandate of Palestine, the name Eretz Yisrael (abbreviated א״י Aleph-Yod), was part of the official name of the territory." This may be (first I've ever heard of it, to be honest), but it was certainly not the case when the Aliyah started in Ottoman times. Jewish sources from the time almost universally used the term "Palestine", as can be easily ascertained from the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

While Jews may have referred to the land as "Palestine" in English, nearly all Jews would use the cultural, religious term Eretz Yisroel (Land of Israel) when referring to Aliya. Aliya is at heart a religious term emphasising the spiritual "assent" that comes from living in the Holy Land. The term Aliya therefore is very much linked with the term Eretz Yisroel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.107.145 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

Problematic issue - "Palestine" did not exist in Ottoman times except as a European name for a vague geographic designation. The Ottoman empire did not have a province, Willayet or Kaza by that name. Zionist organizations did call it Palestine because that is what it was called in Europe and the USA, as well as "Land of Israel" - Eretz Yisroel." Arabs did not use the name Palestine very much at all. First recorded use in official records was in the 1880s. However, this is not an article about Arabs. [[Mewnews (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

White Slavery

Then there is the nasty business of girls from the "former FSU" coming to Israel under "Aliyah" to become sex-slaves. We don't want to go there. Forget it.24.64.166.191 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also

"Aliyot before the establishing of the Zionist movement": What is the point to this red-linked "see also" to an unlikely article title? Can someone at least change this to a title someone might use for an article? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article -- Aliyag -- should cover pre-Zionist immigration as well. The link ought to be removed.--Doron 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 recent edits

This edit by Sakranit changes day and number related to Operation Solomon without citation. Since the old date and number were not cited, either, I don't know what to make of this.

This edit by Al-Andalus asserts as fact, without citation, that the Bnei Menashe Jews from India descend from the Ten Lost Tribes. Given how much controversy there is around any claims pertaining to the Lost Tribes, I am very skeptical. At the very least, if this is to be in the article, we should cite who claims this. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liel Liebovitz

Mainly out of curiosity: how does Liel Liebovitz, born in Israel and an advocate of aliyah of American Jews, come to be living in New York? Does someone know? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the wonders of Wikipedia: I got a response from the man himself. Excerpting from our email exchange:
LL
I've read your questions about me and my book, "Aliya," on Wikipedia, and would like to respond. I'm a ninth-generation Israeli who had left the country in 1999, for a variety of reasons, and immigrated to New York. As soon as I arrived here, I became fascinated with those American Jews who travelled the opposite path, making Aliya to Israel, and so interviewed a number of them and wrote a non-fiction book about it. My conclusions are that Aliya, commonly perceived as being an act motivated by a sole force, Zionism, is more complicated: While in 1947, for example, Zionism was certainly the driving force behind Aliya, in the present Aliya is mainly practiced by Orthodox Jews who often choose to move to West Bank settlements out of religio-political motivations. I have some more info on the subject, if you're interested, on my website, www.lielleibovitz.com.
JM
Thanks. Yes, I would agree that Zionism and aliyah as understood in the pre-State (or even pre-1967 or arguably pre-1982) years were a very different matter than what is mostly happening today.

Did I mischaracterize you when I described you as "an advocate of aliyah of American Jews"?
LL
…I am not an advocate of Aliya, especially having myself chosen to leave Israel and settle in New York. I'm fascinated by it as a sociological phenomenon -- the lack of traditional push/pull factors and the predominance of ideology are thrilling -- but am far from embracing it as the only, or even the best, course of action recommended to American Jews. The book, in fact, ends with a conversation I had with one of the Americans who had made Aliya, in which he states his opinion (mine as well) that it matters not where you choose to live but what's in your mind and heart.
Jmabel | Talk 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bnei Menashe

"The Bnei Menashe Jews from India, which were only recently discovered and recognised by mainstream Judaism as descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes…" Is this true? Can someone cite for it? They may, indeed be recently recognized, but as descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On March 31, 2005, Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, announcing the state of Israel’s recognition of the Bnei Menashe as part of the lost tribe of Menashe. Its a known fact. -- Spoil29

Thanks, being able to add "Shlomo Amar" to the search terms gave me much more relevant hits. Let me see if I understand correctly. In summer 2004, Amar (the Sephardic Chief Rabbi) led a delegation to India to examine the matter. [1] In March 2005, he declared that they were genuinely descendants of the lost tribe of Menashe. [2] In November 2005, out of respect for the Indian government, the Israelis have halted conversions in India to Orthodox Judaism, but are instead letting the Bnei Menashe emigrate first and then be converted. [3] And the challenge was more a matter of Indian politics than actual dispute as to their descent, is that correct? Just out of curiosity, do you know if anyone is still disputing the descent? Has the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi just implicitly consented or actively agreed? - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, the majority of the Indian state of Mizoram (home of the Bnei Menashe) are still Christian and have not converted to Judaism, while half of them agree that they are decedents of Israelites, they choose not to convert anyway. The other half strictly deny this fact. I have no idea what the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi thinks, I don’t believe he has been public about it. -- Spoil29

France

Seems to me that there's an awful lot here about anti-Semitism in France. I've never exactly been a fan of French attitudes toward Jews, but in this context this would only be relevant insofar as there is a statistically significant recent aliyah from France. Is there? The article gives no numbers on this, it just makes what seem to me to be misleading if technically accurate remarks disparaging the situation of the Jews in France. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] Just to name a few.

[6], about anti-Semitic murders in France. -- User:Spoil29

2500 in a year out of 600,000 does not seem all that massive. How does this compare to earlier numbers? - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may not seem massive but remember, France is a very developed western country, where for the most part, people live comfortably. The Aliyah numbers have been rising since the intifada. 2001- 1,007 2002- 2,035 2003- 2086 2004- 2,415 2005- 3,005 User:Spoil29

Not to trivialize it, and clearly the rise suggests something that belongs in the article, but it seems to me that what has been written in the article is rather disproportionate to about 2% of French Jews making aliyah in six years. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First the number of Jews in France was 500,000 according to a large survey in 2000. Which means less than that today. The numbers here about the Aliyah do not include all the people who left to Israel without making aliyah ; it does not include of course the people who left for the UK, Canada and the USA (many thousands also). And most important - the Jews who leave France are mostly young. The young Jews leave and the olders stay. Benjil 11:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well an increase is an increase. But you are welcome to edit it. -- User:Spoil29

While what is described in the latter article sounds truly appalling, I'm not sure what to make of it. frontpagemag.com is not a particularly good source; while I will assume they have their facts straight about the actual killings, they are not a source I would find convincing on anyone's motivations or whether something was part of a pattern. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I remember reading this in the nypost some time ago, however, I could not find it anywhere but frontpage.-- User:Spoil29

Jewish housing/employment 1945-48

So what were those hundreds of thousands of Jews doing for a living during this period. What did they do for housing? I can't find any info about this except pro-Arab accusations that they stole homes and farms from the Arabs.

See Austerity in Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

No mention of communist Romania trading emigration permits for foreign currency? --Error 01:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about it too. Is there a reputable source we can use? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's supposed to be a recent book on Moses Rosen that goes into this in depth, I haven't seen it. But I don't think there is much dispute any more about the broad picture. Ceauşescu also "sold" Transylvanian Saxons to West Germany. I'm in a hurry right now, but I'll try to follow this up. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

While I don't know so much off-hand, there is tons of info that can be added for both the first and second aliyahs (and probably 3rd, 4th and 5th too), and therefore they should probably have their own articles. In any case, each of the first aliyahs is a major topic on Israeli history. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created both First Aliyah and Second Aliyah. They should probably be expanded. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When you say: "it is thought that few survived the bloody upheavals caused by the Crusader invasion in 1229 and their subsequent expulsion by the Muslims in 1291" Do you mean the expulsion of Crusaders by Muslims or explusions of Jews by Muslims. It not clear the way its currently written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.185.73 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.

I didn't write the passage, but almost certainly the expulsion of Crusaders by Muslims, since that existed and (to the best of my knowledge) the other did not, at least not in the relevant period. - Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is historically well known that Crusaders kicked out the Jews and the Muslims allowed them back. If there was any problem with Muslims that should be detailed separately but the Crusader ban on Jews living in Jerusalem and more or less anywhere else in the "Holy Land" is well known [[Mewnews (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

"making aliyah"

The following was in the article. It obviously was talk page stuff, not article stuff. Does anyone have an answer?

(Note: when did "going on aliyah" become "making aliyah". In Jewish English one talks about making Shabbos ie making the Sabbath. It seems to be a direct translation from German.)

- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Making Aliyah" is the contemporary English idiom. Don't know when or why a change occurred. --Shirahadasha 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting - in Hebrew aliyah is the verb to ascend by itself, it would doesn't really need any verb before it for understanding, curious etymology.

No. Actually, Aliyah in Hebrew is a noun, not a verb. The noun is the noun for the action of ascending, but it is a noun all the same. And in Hebrew, the verb attached to it is "la'asot" which translates as "to do"... or "to make". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.122.91 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

before and after the reading

It seems to be against logic that "before and after the reading" you make aliyah. When you climb up onto the bimah, you have to climb down after the reading. Please clarify! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.123.68.168 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Edited clarifying meaning. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never heard of "making aliyah" being used in the sense of an aliyah to the Torah. Rather, I've always known that sense as "getting an aliyah" or "having an aliyah," where aliyah is just a noun meaning "section of Torah reading." The usage in the article may be someone's conjecture...
From what I know, there are really two distict sets of semantics:
  • Aliyah (Israel): making aliyah, doing aliyah
  • Aliyah (Torah): getting an aliyah, having an aliyah
--Eliyak T·C 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine aliyah

The following was placed in the article as a section header with no content: "66,696 Jews have come to Israel from Argentina since 1948." It was also with no citation. If someone has something citable on this, it probably belongs in the section on Argentina. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-zionist approach to aliyah

Benjil has reverted my edits pointing out that the concept of mass aliyah before Moshiach is an innovations of zionism, claiming that this statement violates NPOV. I have reverted it back. Perhaps he could elaborate as to why he believes otherwise. Yehoishophot Oliver 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted it back. You can't introduce your own private point of view in Wikipedia, in particular before discussing it. Anyway the idea that the gathering to Israel occurs before the Mashiah is not an innovation of Zionism (which is a secular ideology and does not deal with the Mashiah issue), and in fact was the point of view of the Rambam and most great rabbis. Benjil 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, we can discuss it. It's not my private view. On the contrary, it's the view in the article that is someone's private view. Jews prayed throughout the ages to return to the Holy Land with Moshiach. That is the fact. That point is deliberately left out due to the writer's POV agenda.
I've reverted it back again.
On the contrary, the Rambam writes clearly in laws of kings 11:1 that it will be Moshiach who will gather the exiles only after the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Now that I've quoted a source, if you have sources that indicate otherwise, the onus now lies on you to prove so. Yehoishophot Oliver 12:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are not going to impose your personal agenda. Your view is a very minority view inside Judaism. Most rabbis, may I remind you, are Zionists, and even Shas describes itself as Zionist. Their have been aliyoth all over history and the idea that we have to wait for the Mashiah before is *modern*. In fact, the Rambam himself *made Aliyah* and explained it was forbidden to leave Israel. The fact that the Mashiah will gather the remnants of the Jews to Israel does not mean that it is forbidden to make aliyah before him. Just that, as today 60% of Jews are still outside Israel, he will bring them back to Israel. Benjil 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whoa, talk about lacking NPOV. "Most rabbis are zionists." (What does Shas' self description have to do with anything?) I'd always thought the opposite, but whatever. Did you take a vote, or something? Anyway, I have quoted a source, viz. the Rambam, and you have provided no counter-source, only made sweeping baseless statements. Now the onus lies on you to prove your point quoting a counter source.

You seem not to understand that your POV is only yours. Your source did nothing to support your point about the Zionism inventing something or the fact that "mass" Aliyah was forbidden. As for most rabbis being Zionists, it is easy: Zionist Religious represent 15-20% of the Israeli population ; Shas Haredim are 5% ; other non-Zionist Haredim are 5%. Easy count. Benjil 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again (you didn't read my last post, apparently) I never said that "mass" Aliyah before Moshiach's coming is/was forbidden. All I said was that this was not something that Jews traditionally prayed for. As for most rabbis being Zionists, how about measuring it in terms of rabbis and in terms of world Orthodox Jewry, and you'll get a vastly different count. RZs are certainly not a majority of Orthodox Jews. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RZ are a majority of Orthodox Jews in Israel and in the world. I gave you figures for Israel where the vast majority of Orthodox Jews live. In the Diaspora, it is more difficult to assess but from my personnal knowledge, it should not be very different. Sorry. Benjil 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I did some online research (at least on the Holy Land), and I've found that you're facts are wrong. RZs are not a majority :
Several recent studies by the Guttman Institute and the Avihai Foundation, the Floersheimer Institute, the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others reveal that the Jewish population of Jerusalem is divided into four more or less equal groups -- in Hebrew, haredim, datiim (meaning Religious Zionists), masortiim (traditional), and hilonim -- not just into haredim and hilonim. http://www.jcpa.org/jcprg2.htm
According to this it is clear that RZs represent at most a third of the Orthodox population--which makes them, of course, a minority group, contrary to your claim. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't even know how to read now ? You are speaking here of Jerusalem. And masoratiim are not Orthodox, they are not religious, by definition. So, in Jerusalem, known for its huge Haredi population, even there, they are only half of the orthodox population. Once again you prove my point. Benjil 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. You misunderstand me. I never said that someone ever had to wait before making Aliyah. Indeed, it was done. Never said otherwise. I said that the notion that it is proper for all Jews to make aliyah en masse as opposed to waiting for Moshiach to redeem them, is an innovation of the Zionists, and I'm still waiting for you to adduce a counter-source. I certainly never said that "it is forbidden to make aliyah". I said that the notion that mass (operative word) aliyah before the coming of Moshiach is a positive goal that ought to be promoted is a new idea that did not exist historically, and it's intellectually dishonest to superimpose it on the prayers in the Amidah.

Well you are wrong. Just a little example: ever heard of Rav Kalisher ? He was before the Zionists. Benjil 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it started with him, then. When did he live, in the 1800's? If so, I can add that this idea started in the 1800s. Either way, you have proved my point that a prayer for a mass return to the land before Moshiach is NOT what the Amidah is talking about. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. As for not leaving, this is confusion. The prohibition to leave the land of Israel has nothing to do with a Mitzvah to get up and go there, which is a separate matter entirely. The former does not necessitate the latter. However, the article clearly implies that such an obligation is held to exist by "most rabbis", when the only one who holds this is the Ramban. I challenge you to find contemporaries of the Ramban (Rishonim) who agree with him on this point.

Please provide solide sources for your views before reverting again. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are the one who changed the text, not me, and you have until now absolutely no source at all to sustain your point of view. You are the one supposed to prove it BEFORE making the changes. Benjil 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did quote a source: re there not being a yearning for mass aliyah before Moshiach I quoted the Rambam in laws of kings 11:1 who rules that it will be Moshiach who will gather the exiles only after the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. As for the idea that there is an obligation to make Aliyah, I pointed out that only the Ramban holds this.
I grant that I didn't quote sources before. But now that I have, it behooves you to find counter sources before reverting. I'm waiting. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your source does not prove your point, in fact it means absolutely nothing in our discussion. And now you also contradict yourself as you say than Ramban defended the idea of mandatory Aliyah - so it is not an invention of Zionism. Thanks a lot. Do you even read what you write ? And don't come with the innovation of the "mass" Aliyah argument - if it is a mitsvah to make Aliyah so all Jews should make it.

Anyway, in Wikipedia you can't write POV things like "it's a Zionist invention" and say it is a fact when most people disagree with you and yourself have no argument for it. So either you write "some ultra-orthodox sects believe than mass Aliyah is possible only after the coming of the Mashiah" (and by the way, most non- Zionist Haredim do not believe that just a tiny minority), or you don't write anything. But if you continue your vandalism, I will ask for you to be banned from editing. Benjil 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my sources (the rambam and the ramban) prove my points. Why don't you explain why you think that it doesn't? It goes to show that you have no response. The ramban was the only one who believed that aliyah was an obligation, correct. That doesn't mean that he conceived of it as taking place practically; due to the danger of living in the land, it was next to impossible to put that into practice en masse. The idea of something being practically possible and it being an obligation are separate notions. Which is why the Ramban himself didn't live there for many years. Do you even read what I write? But I see that these "subtle points" are lost on you.
We are not here to discuss what the Rambam and the Ramban said but what YOU said, that coming to Israel before the Mashiah is a Zionist invention. The simple fact that the Ramban prescribed Aliyah proves you are wrong. The fact that is was not practical at his time just explains why it happened only during the 19th century when it became possible. Benjil 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one believes that "mass Aliyah is possible only after the coming of the Mashiah", because mass aliyah has been done. It's a fact that no one denies. Maybe you should read what I write before reverting my edits. Did I talk about mass aliyah being possible in the posts above? I didn't address that issue before the previous paragraph, yet you refer to it as if I raised it. The point I made was that this was never widely deemed as a desirable goal, and certainly never prayed for, and certainly not the meaning of the prayers in the Amidah, which are talking abou the Redemption through Moshiach!. And you have brought not one shred of proof to the contrary. Which makes your edits POV.
I made no edit, you did. And you give no academic source, no reference, nothing that proves your point. It is about time that you understand that I have nothing to prove - you have and you did not. You are the one writing bold affirmations about a "Zionist invention". And this is your right, but only if: 1) You write a source (academic) with it that says that this is a Zionist invention  ; 2) and unless there is a scientific consensus about it, you write that this is the point of view of a particular group. You don't do it, you will be reverted over and over again. I will let you the benefit of the doubt, you seem to be new. So make a new edit that respects these rules, or I will call for an intervention. Benjil 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In summary: Maybe you should read what I write before reverting my edits. As for having me banned, please cut the cheap threats and stick to the issues, quoting soruces; thanks. Kol tuv, Yehoishophot Oliver 14:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the prediction of immigration in 2007?

Widely circulated in the news today, and picked up by at least 3 unimpeachable media sources, is the following: "On 20th April 2007, Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot reported that 14,400 immigrants are expected in 2007 while 20,000 are expected to leave the country Combined Jewish Philanthropies and Jewish in St Louis and Jewish Net"

That clip would appear to belong in the Wikipedia article Aliyah at [7], the section "Recent Trends". Have the rules changed, are Reliable Sources no longer welcome in articles?

Note - the story does not appear in this form in the English language version of the web-site of Yediot Ahronot [8], but all the sources given are entirely satisfactory for translation purposes. PalestineRemembered 19:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Yedioth Aharonot from Friday and did not find the article. I did not find it online on Ynet or on the English site Ynetnews. But I may be wrong, maybe I just missed it. Furthermore, there are no "alyah expectations" of 14,400 for 2007, this is pure nonsense. This is also way lower than usual and no particular reason for it. 20,000 leaving the country is also much more than the usual 15,000 (and no specific reason for such a rise). And, these figures just forget to add the Israelis coming back to Israel after years abroad (usually 6-7000 a year). So all this data does not seem very serious to me. Benjil 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are real objections to this clip being included, then they need placing here, since the reverts are otherwise inexplicable. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - and this report is easily verifiable, in translation, by sources that should be WP:RS, at least for this purpose.
It's a mystery that WP:NOT has been introduced, since it says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."
And it should not need saying that WP:OR renders the objections (though genuine, and entirely understandable) unnaceptable in editing. (Note - I seem to recall other reports of foreign language articles appearing in one form on the home-site and then appearing differently on the English site). PalestineRemembered 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Please read it. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the latest statistics. For the first 9 months this year 12,884 made Aaliyah. [9] 3 more months remaining. So the figure would be 16-17K. The emigration will be ~11K. (In 2005, 21,500 Emigrated and 10,500 returned). So net immigration will be ~5-6K. Axxn (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total immigration to Israel in 2007 was 18,129[10]. Of this 6,892 (38%) were from USSR, 3,589 (20%) were from Ethiopia, 2,335 (13%) from France, 2,095 (11.5%) from USA, 562 (3%) from UK, 319 from Argentina (1.76%), 261 from Brazil (1.44%) and 189 (1%) from Canada. Axxn (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian sub-continent aliyah

This important group has some how been left out of the article - and wikipedia. could someone give them a section here and anywehre else is necessary? Telaviv1 (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-aliya religious term,political manipulation or reality? seems to me .a simple minded israeli now in murcia spain .that aliya was a religious term used in old days to refer to moving up to israel.Better in israel than elsewhere for a jew. Closer to god.

Today it is used as a political term to make jews outside israel feel living in israel is better for a jew. Truth is that israel is better for a jew.No need for barmitsvas to put the jew into the kids. No need to do things out of the norm to put the jew into the kinela. in israel you grow up a jew.You drive like a jew. You curse the taxcollector like a jew. Since it really is better in israel for a jew then the term aliya is true,not just religious not just a political psychological tool. It really is better.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aliyah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am quick failing this article, unfortunately. It is woefully referenced, as is noted by the tag at the top of the article. Please make sure everything is referenced, and it meets the good article criteria before listing it again. Thank you. how do you turn this on 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references. . .can we place this article back up for nomination? Thanks, --Fatal!ty (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Have a look at some good articles that recently passed for a good idea on how referencing works. Additionally the lead is way too short. I'm sorry how do you turn this on 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Maabarah children.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North American Aliyah

The section on North American Aliya states that there were over 3,000 immigrants in 2005. As far as I can determine there were 2045 immigrants in 2005 (CBS figures) and similar numbers in 2006 and 2007.. I wonder where those numbers came from? [[Mewnews (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Biography article?

I'm not sure why this article about a topic has a WP:BIO tag attached to it. The article is not about a person; I vote to delete the tag completely. I assume the singer Aaliyah was meant but she already has her own article. Thoughts? --FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19th-century and earler

Numerous documented waves of aliyah in the early nineteenth century and earlier centuries should be added to this article. There were also Ottoman forced population transfers of Jews out of Israel that should find a place somewhere.Historicist (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied territories

Is there any objection to changing the article to say that it gives the right to live in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories?93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

returning citzens

  • Merge - I would say delete because ex-pats moving 'home' is NN around the world. Israel though, actively [somewhat] pursues ex-pats to return, so this could be merged into the main aliyah article. --Shuki (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Separate - A returning citizen is not making Aliyah. Aliyah is understood in the sense of returning Jews who were born abroad and were never citizens of Israel. If I, as an Israeli, will immigrate to Canada, and after 10 years will reutrn to Israel, it does not mean I did Aliyah because I was already born here and I already have citizenship. Aliyah applies only to the Jewish diaspora. John Hyams (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This is a very Biased Article - it does not talk about the effect of Aliyah on the psychology of present Arab citizens of Israel. It is also very racist in its outlook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srirguee (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Arab response to anything constructive. "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," quoth the brilliant—if caustic—Dr. Abba Eban. Why don't you go watch a Hanan Ashrawi documentary where she'll hunt high and low for the scuzziest ex-con Jew she can find and the Oxford-educated son of a wealthy Palestinian, and claim these are "typical" Jew and Arab. I don't mean to be offensive, but Wikipedia is a forum for facts. Your suggestion of racism is an opinion—indeed, an incorrect opinion. There are numerous research and facts to prove my so called opinion. And also logic. Aliyah by its very nature is discriminatory - do relatives of Arab citizens have the same right? What gives a certain religion an authority to claim divine right over some parcels of land? <And I am not an Arab, nor am I related to one, just using a plain and unbiased rational outlook> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srirguee (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyah from Arab countries: Isiah 40: 31: Bible prophecy

Bible, King James. Isaiah, from The holy Bible, King James version of Isiah 40:31 - [11] goes as follows:-

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

That differs from the version in the article. Where does the version in the article come from? Trahelliven (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To use a Jewish Bible translation, use {{Bibleverse||Isaiah|40:31|HE}} which produces Isaiah 40:31. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the reference to Isaiah 40:31. Neither version suggests God promising to return the children of Israel to Zion on "wings". Trahelliven (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand
I am not a Biblical scholar nor do I speak Hebrew. I was very careful to see if I could find a Jewish version of Isaiah 40;31 to compare with the St James version. Malik Shabazz kindly supplied me with a Jewish version which for all intents and purposes was identical to the King James version. If they do not truly reflect Isaiah, please be courteous enough to give me a reference to the version upon which you rely. In the absence of you so doing within 72 hours, I intend to restore my deletion of the reference to Isaaiah 40:31. Trahelliven (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)VV[reply]

Gilabrand

1 The source of the reference to Isaiah 40:31 is not given.
2 A page of a website called Prophetic Bible written by an unnamed person is hardly a Reliable Source - http://www.propheticbible.com/israel.html. Trahelliven (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

1 I have just noticed at the very bottom of web page - http://www.propheticbible.com/israel.html- the following notation - Prophetic Bible - Copyright © 2009-2012 All Rights Reserved. All Scripture is taken from the King James Version.
2 I have located a second digital copy of Isaiah 40.31 of the King James Bible - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2594466.
3 That version copies at - But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
4 The webmaster of Prophetic Bible has clearly misread the King James Bible.
5 I propose to remove from the article the reference to Isaiah 40:31. Trahelliven (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are fellow editors thoughts on creating a new category: "Religiously motivated migrations"? This would include things like The Return to Zion aka (Aliyah). What are your thoughts?DiligenceDude (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyah from Israel to Israel?

The big graph detailing in very precise numbers the amount of aliyah from each country is fantastic, but I noticed that Israel is included. So did 5,509 Jews make aliyah from Israel to Israel? Is there a reasonable explanation for this?--RM (Be my friend) 05:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not really sure but maybe it means people who left Israel and later returned 94.196.89.217 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Aliyah Graph vandalism

If you add up the numbers in the "Europe" column you get 2,444,696 rather than the claimed amount of 2,246,235. I then looked at the revision history and it was clear to me that the page had been vandalized repeatedly, with no justifications ever provided, by editor "173.34.103.99." Compare the previous revisions and it will be obvious what he was doing. John Martin Walker (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serial vandalism and distortion of statistics?

The vast majority of the past 1000 edits, dating back oevr a year, appear to have been made by a sequence of IPs, amending statistics while maintaining the original citations. It looks to me as though a major clean-up needs to be done, and that the article should probably be semi-protected. Does anyone have suggestions or comments? I will also raise this at the WikiProject Israel talk page. RolandR (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "Palestine" with other names

I noticed that it says "Between 1882 and 1903, approximately 35,000 Jews immigrated to the southwestern area of Syria..." and "Between 1904 and 1914, 40,000 Jews immigrated mainly from Russia to southwestern Syria...". I looked at the changes and saw they, and some other similiar changes, was from July 2011. I know that some people want remove "Palestine" and replace it with names that they like more but even if we ignore that, it is still a problem that they replace it with names of territories that are not defined well or not specific enough. This has been discussed, among various pages, here. This is to compare with Palestine that encompass an area that is well-defined, though there are some other definitions of it.

I think for example that a vast majority who reads what is in the sentences above will wonder why Jews were immigrating to the southwestern part of the country of Syria. Now there is no reason to not use "Palestine", which is the term used by the vast majority of sources, but if "Syria" is going to be used when it refers to Syria (region), then at least say in cases like this "southwestern part of the region of Syria" or something similiar so it is not confused with the country. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine typically refers to State of Palestine, which is anachronistic to 19th century. I agree that Syria is not a good term either, so we should either use Ottoman Syria, Southern Syria or perhaps Palestine (region).GreyShark (dibra) 06:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should replace with "the land of Israel" since that's where they were going to in their own eyes. Benjil (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bla Bla Bla! You should stick to sources, instead of picking what you like.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bla Bla Bal" ? Is this a way of discussing ? Are you denying the fact that Jews called it the land of Israel ? Benjil (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my way of reactig to BS. Wikipedia is built on sources, not on anything else. Palestine in sources beats land of Israel. However, keepig both is a better idea. Removing Palestine is not a good idea.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a troll. You also have no idea what is the use of sources and their meaning. The Jews called this land the Land of Israel, that's a fact that nobody even denies. It's also the reason they were coming here - because it was the Land of Israel, not because it was "Palestine" or "southwestern Syria", I think we should use this term. We can say "immigrated to the Land of Israel, situated to the South-West of Syria" or "also called Palestine by westerners" or whatever we can agree on. Benjil (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No not all of them did call it the Land of Israel. And even if they did, I see no reason why Palestine (region) should be removed.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a source to tell us that Jews rejected the term "Land of Israel", in particular the ones who were making Aliyah ? I did not ask to remove "Palestine (region)" but to add "Land of Israel" since this was the land to which the Jews were immigrating and this is the subject of this article. Benjil (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing Palestine, is removing Palestine. Land of Israel is already added, both terms should be here...--Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may make a suggestion or two. 1) This article should not be a political article. It should not be about Israel, the state, it's about Israel, the Land of Israel. The Jews have been wanting, or traveling to the Land of Israel for thousands of years, regardless of sovereignty. Having in the lead that Aliyah is Jews moving to Palestine doesn't make sense. If you click on Land of Israel, that has all the other names for what LAnd of Israel can mean. It's not a political statement and we can avoid nationalistic edits. Yossiea (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, the Land of Israel is also called Palestine. All terms for the land should be here, other wise its blatant WP:POV pushMakeandtoss (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jordan/Palestine? In any event, I am OK with the way it is now, that is why I reverted. The way it was before, it was Aliyah is Jews moving to Palestine. I would hope you would agree that makes no sense. Yossiea (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does not make any sense, all terms should be used. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is about language as much as anything. The Hebrew phrase "Eretz Yisrael" is relatively new in English and until a few decades ago was rare in English sources as the main word used for the region. The same authors would write "Eretz Yisrael" when they were writing in Hebrew and "Palestine" when they were writing in English. That is still true of most academic scholarship even though the general use of "Eretz Yisrael" has grown. The two words are interchangeable for all practical purposes when the history of Zionism is being discussed. The biggest myth around here is that the distinction is between what Jews called it and others called it. In fact announcements and publications by the Zionist movement itself in English (also in German I think, but check) used "Palestine" most of the time. Even the official reports of the Zionist Congresses used it (at least until 1948, I don't know when they stopped); examples: [12] [13] Nor is it true that Jews migrating to the country pre-WW1 avoided the word "Palestine". Zerotalk 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources proves nothing because during those years, the area was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. In the year 1387, Jews did not say, "I dream of moving to Palestine." They said, "I dream of moving to Israel", or "I dream of moving to the land of Israel." and there are tons of sources for that in the Jewish realm of books and religious texts. Palestine did not come into use until it it became the name of the place under British control, and using it now is a POV. Yossiea (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, the words used by Wikipedia are determined by good modern English sources, not by past usage by a particular largely-non-English group. Second, if you refer to Jewish writing in Hebrew you are quite correct, but this is the English encyclopedia. Third, your statement "Palestine did not come into use until it it became the name of the place under British control" is incorrect. In English and European languages, Palestine and obvious variants like Palaestina was extremely common during the 18th and 19th centuries. You can look on Google Books (there is a convenient "19th century" option in the search tools). In Yiddish, both Palastina and Eretz Yisroel were used; I don't know the proportions. Zerotalk 07:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples from Joseph ben Ephraim Karo I saw some days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_ben_Ephraim_Karo&diff=594030524&oldid=582446233, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_ben_Ephraim_Karo&diff=594031548&oldid=594030524 and https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_ben_Ephraim_Karo&diff=600294879&oldid=600279643. As have been mentioned, "Palestine" is by far the most common term. It is also the case that the "Land of Israel" isn't defined well and "Ottoman Syria" isn't the same as "Palestine". If something was "the central rabbinical court in all Palestine", replacing it with "Ottoman Syria" changes the meaning of the statement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant RFM proposal

The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious etymology material removed

Material mentioned here was obviously vandalism and needn't be displayed by default. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The "Etymology" section of this article contained the following unreferenced and (in my opinion) extremely dubious material. I've removed it for the time being.

Some insist that Aliyah was named after Elijah the prophet, or Eliyahu. After speaking profanities against god in the west, Elijah was exiled from the Arabia's "Masjid-al-Haram," or the precinct of Allah's asylum. His openness with the Jews and subsequent state of poverty and seizure of personal assets in the middle east, the Aliyah was created to safely bring back some prophets to the holy land. Isra', on the other hand, is the Arabic word for "ascent" and a chapter in the Quran that takes the servant of Allah from the Masjid-al-Haram to the Masjid-al-Aqsa where he was to see the signs of Allah.
Islamic traditions further add there is a return from the Masjid-al-Aqsa to the Masjid-al-Haram although the account is not mentioned in the Quran except in a state of a shaven-head war victory to reclaim the Ka'aba. Early Muslims in the Masjid-al-Aqsa disputed with their Masjid-al-Haram counterparts regarding a plan to create trials and tribulations to selectively filter migration back to the middle east. The fitna, or tribulation, conducted in Israel was repeated in several middle eastern countries making it virtually impossible for nationals to return from the diaspora. Ironically, the same decision to host tribulations in Islamic nations enforced a repentance of Muslims at the Masjid-al-Haram in the Quran.
It is also mentioned in some accounts that Elijah himself created a fitna which led many westerners to believe that he was a female. Aliyah is the female version of the name Ali (the Arabic nickname of Elijah). Many still suspect that Elijah was god himself, the unwed, while the name Hashem was saved for Israel, the married messenger and father of the Banu-Hashem (Bani-Israel). Indeed, after generations of studying the Quran, western scholars agreed this would be more confirming with the accounts in the Quran. It is important to note that the Quran itself is ambiguous about this topic so as to create layers of privacy between creator and creation.

If (and only if) the above can be substantiated by high-quality reliable sources, it would presumably be OK to return to the article's text. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

indeed dubious. In the bible, "aliyah" (coming "up") and "yerida" (coming "down", like Abraham did when he went off to egypt [14]) is immigration to or emmigration from the Land of israel. it cannot be connected to islamic tradition or even to Elijah. I must add that it is very absurd that this article is locked for editing, which I can't imagine how pro-PL editors will have any interest to edit, while other "explosive" articles are open for edit, and how an editor with more than 5,000 edits in other project is blocked for editing here. Hummingbird (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what is up with the Noun choices?

In the "abstract" or introductory section of the article, it references 42% of the world's Jewish population living in "Israel and the Palestinian Terrorities." Readers are compelled to click on "Palestinian Territories" to find out that the article is referencing the West Bank, a term readers would be more familiar with. Are we interested in providing information to readers or playing politics? Not even sure if the "West Bank" is even considered a Palestinian Territory. Ladam11 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2017

Hello,

Please change the external link http://www.science.co.il/Aliyah.asp to http://www.science.co.il/aliyah/ Genewiki1 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — IVORK Discuss 08:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Aliyah and Perez Smolenskin

Using David Engel's book I will add information regarding Perez Smolenskin's hand in the Zionist movement and the first Aliyah particularly. I will also clarify information about the First Aliyah, detailing how the Russian Pogroms played a role in that migration pattern. In the section 1200-1882 I will write about Smolenskin and the Hibbat Tysion movements. The Hibbat Tysion movements were interconnected with the Russian pogroms, so that is another distinction I will be making. The article needs a few more citations, as well because there are many sections where the citation is ambiguous. If anyone wants to comment on these changes please let me know on this talk page or on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicia595 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of David Engel's books will you use? He wrote a lot. Tsion or Tsiyon, not Tysion. Otherwise looks promising! Chapmansh (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aliyah. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aliyah. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Aliyah - duplicated text

The words "The migration of Jews from Russia correlates with the end of the Russian pogroms, with about 3 percent of Jews emigrating from Europe to Palestine." are duplicated in this paragraph. I suggest deleting the second occurrence. Andy duck (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al ALiyah is a JIhadist Village in Syria bombed in April 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.93.137.37 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Fix Please

As we all know, people emigrate FROM where they are at, and immigrate TO where they are going.

The first sentence of this article states, "Aliyah... is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the Land of Israel...".

But neither Jews, nor anyone else can "...immigrat[e]... from the diaspora..."

(Because you can't 'immigrate from' -- Instead, you 'emigrate from' and you 'immigrate to')

The term 'Aliyah' is describing Jews emigrating FROM the Diaspora, and immigrating TO the Land of Israel.

To write the idea (i.e. the sentence) better, it could be re-cast as,

"Aliyah . . . is the immigration of the Diaspora to the Land of Israel. . ." (Capitalized 'D' in diaspora, which specifically means 'the Jews of the diaspora', and no other diaspora).

Or, the sentence could be re-cast as, "Aliyah . . . is the immigration of Jews of the diaspora to the Land of Israel. . .". (Substituting 'of' in place of 'from').

Or, the sentence could be re-cast as, "Aliyah . . . is the immigration of diaspora Jews to the Land of Israel. . ."

Finally, the phrase "Jews from the diaspora" cannot be properly used as a phrasal noun because there is a word for that: "Diaspora" (with capitalized 'D').

Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.65.141 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Clean-up Permission

I would like to provide a needed reference and remove citation comment from intro. I don't have "Extended-Protected" status, but, I have been editing for just under 7 yrs., doing citation clean-up and grammar/syntax/typo minor edits at my own slow pace. Bjhodge8 (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bjhodge8, you can copy the article over to your sandbox and make changes there. You can then use {{edit extended-protected}} to request that someone apply your changes. Regards, – Þjarkur (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-protected edit request

The URL for the third citation tag is incorrect. The correct url is: http://focus-migration.hwwi.de/Israel.5246.0.html?&L=1 or to the source document which is also hosted on that page: http://focus-migration.hwwi.de/typo3_upload/groups/3/focus_Migration_Publikationen/Laenderprofile/CP_13_Israel.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.72.212 (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 04:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs extra references or edit to note lack of clear data

Particularly this sentence, "Over 2,000 French Jews moved to Israel each year between 2000 and 2004 due to anti-Semitism in France.[90]", should be either backed up by data or not presented as a fact but as a insinuation made by a newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil Blue Spider (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Aliyah is a fundamental aspect of Judaism not Zionism Talkerby (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyah to Jerusalem

In modern Israel, it's common to use the term Aliyah when describing a visit to Jerusalem, even if it's not a permanent relocation, or for religious reasons. This is partly because of the physical ascent when going to Jerusalem from any other point in the country, but the term isn't really used for other mountain cities like Arad or Haifa, so it's obvious that it's because of the traditional connotation of the term. Now, I don't really have any source, since I am basing this on my common knowledge as a local, but if someone finds a direct reference to this, I think it could be added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.97.169 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

I believe that the following video would be relevant for this page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEZzrEWTyfs&t It visualizes data from the past 100 years about Aliyah to Israel. We can add it as an external link. Shalev Shahar (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We rarely link to self-published content under External Links. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left out: Romanian colonists who established Zichron Yaakov and Rosh Pina

You left out the first Romanian Jewish colonists who settled Zamarin (Zichron Yaakov), Rosh Pina etc.! Major contribution to oldest moshava-type colonies. Arminden (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

In the section "From France", a reference for an article in the Times of Israel gives the author's name as "Amanda Borschel-Da". The author's actual name is "Amanda Borschel-Dan", ending in a letter "N". This can be verified by reading the article. Please change the reference so that the author's name is spelled correctly. Thanks in advance for this very minor correction, which I cannot do myself. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC) 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hibbat Tysion" and "Hovevei Tysion"

"Hibbat Tysion" and "Hovevei Tysion" are not correct and should be replaced by either "Hibbat Tsiyon" and "Hovevei Tsiyon" or "Hibbat Tsion" and "Hovevei Tsion". 82.212.41.22 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Zerotalk 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tsyion" is not a correct form, it should ewither be "Tsiyon" or "Tsion". 2001:16B8:28CC:1100:58BF:2D6C:929F:3409 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Tsiyon is what I intended. Zerotalk 00:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of the Zionist narrative

I am surprised that in the articles of Israeli politicians, especially the early Zionists, the phrase "made aliyah" is used. This is unacceptable for Wikipedia, which should be neutral, and the use of this phrase indicates the adoption of the Zionist view that Palestine is a homeland for the Jews. Sakiv (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: I would describe the problem differently: the term suggests that the immigration of a Jew to the region has a status higher than the immigration of someone else. You are welcome and encouraged to replace the term by something neutral like "immigrated to Palestine" or "immigrated to Israel" depending on the time period. Zerotalk 01:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New image

Hi Onceinawhile! I saw the newly added image you've created, thanks for that! The only comment I have - maybe you can make colors a little bit different? For me blue used for USSR/Russia and Eritrea looks identical, I was surprised to see almost aa million people made aliyah from Eritrea in the 90s. (And shouldn't it be Ethiopia?) Artem.G (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good work, but I agree that the double light blue and double light green throw the eye a bit - maybe throw in yellow and purple instead for the near colour matches? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the feedback. I have made some changes to the colors in the latest (you may need to purge your cache to see the new version). Let me know what you think. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you refused to go for snazzier colours, but yeah, that works. It's clearer now. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, that works! Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable individuals

Hello @Artem.G: This one individual is WP:NOTABLE and has an article on Wikipedia already. Those other millions don't. I'm not opposed to adding him to a list instead, but as my edit summary says, there is no list article. I think there should be a list some where here until it is WP:SPLIT. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are hundreds of notable people who made aliyah. You can start a list, but unless some good sources exist for _list_ of notable people who made aliyah, expect it to be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain that I will do so. However I should remind you that WP:STUBs do exist. If I do so I will only have good sources for one individual but as Morris Soller shows there are sources for him. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Artem.G here. What you need is a category, see Category:Immigrants to Israel for example. Zerotalk 14:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that to his article. That also avoids the problem of his uncertain religion and ancestry – he may not be Jewish. As I note on Talk:Morris Soller Soller carefully does not answer that question even in his autobiography. He says instead that he moved to Israel for reasons of Zionism. That could be nonJewish support for Zionism. He writes ambiguously about it.
I was simply reminding that Americans in Israel could be an independent article if appropriately written. I think it's odd to think that that could never be even a stub. Certainly 294 articles in Category:American emigrants to Israel could become a good list article. I don't have sufficient familiarity to do so however. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

In the introduction, please replace "late-19th century" with "late 19th century". The hyphen is only appropriate when the whole phrase is an adjective (e.g. "a late-19th century development"), but here it's a noun ("in the late 19th century"), and such a phrase shouldn't have a hyphen. 120.21.125.67 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Zerotalk 09:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aliyah&oldid=1136812078"