Misplaced Pages

Al-Andalus, could you please try to address the issues in a concise way, rather than either directing me to do research, claiming you know things to be true without evidence, or simply asserting that obvious ambiguities are not there? Thanks. Jayjg 04:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

claiming you know things to be true without evidence. Mate, scroll up for your EVIDENCE!!!. Are you BLIND? Al-Andalus 05:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

To begin with, as I've explained, Tomer re-wrote the intro, not me, so please stop describing it as "the anti-"Arab Jewish article that Jayjg has turned it into". Second, your "evidence" consists of statements like "look it up in a dictionary", "Google it up, or reach for your nearest dictionary", "look up relevant analytical material on "Arab Jewish" identity", etc. Providing evidence means concisely quoting sources which state exactly what you are trying to prove. Finally, I've told you already I'm not going to waste time with you if you cannot refrain from making personal comments about me (e.g. "in your case, your constant opinions on my usage", "I, unlike you it seems, research material arguing the points of both sides of any given subject.", etc.). Jayjg 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identity?

Al-Andalus, your additions speak of a revival of Arab Jewish identity among minority circles, but to my knowledge, this (the Arab part) remains largely limited to the use of the name. Do you have sources depicting some of this (organized events, statements, writings, etc.)? If not, do you not think it should be reworded to account for it being limited to phraseology rather than cultural and other aspects specifically linked to AJs? Thanks. El_C 08:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please review my two substantial edits to the lead and let me know what you think Al-Andalus, Jay, Tomer, and everyone else. Thanks. El_C 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edits seem good; I've copyedited a little, including changing the "minority circles" to something more encyclopedic. I'm not sure what a "minority circle" does, whether holding hands, dancing the hora, or whatever, but the phrase is meaningless at best. Jayjg 16:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Hopefully this is a good omen, and we can hash things out here beforehand in the future. Tomer 09:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I sectioned this part off and sighned Al-Andalus' name in each partition. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly to El C; "your additions speak of a revival of Arab Jewish identity among minority circles, but to my knowledge, this (the Arab part) remains largely limited to the use of the name." True, but the term "Arab Jew" and the concept of "Arab Jewish identity" go hand in hand for the minority that is implied (and indeed is identified as a minority). The reality is that most Mizrahim do actually embrace the promotion of their (Arab) Jewishness, but as you have correctly indicated, not necessarily by that term (Arab). Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so much, no. It is a part of a (psuedo)leftist current directed towards increasing solidarity with and reducing ethnocentrism against Arabs by (also) the Mizrahi population. I haven't studied much of the proffessional scholarship, but that much seems clear. When you say 'identity,' it implies culturally, so unless this is qualified more along the lines of political identity, it dosen't work, it's sophistry. Those currents are not calling for the Mizrahi Jews to greatly accentuate and increase Mizrahi traditions, culturally — they are only calling for the name to be changed for these abovementioned social and political reasons. The Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow, then, isn't a cultural association, it is a social justice forum. Their focus on and orientation towards the Mizrahi is primarily socioeconomic (and yes, also secular and multicultural, but far from these being a driving force, is the key). Unless there's another movement I (or .he) am not pirvy to. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph which I edited (and which is the subject of your questioning) was meant to convey that among the many Mizrahim that do espouse a revival and promotion of "Arab Jewish" identity, it is a minority from among these that also promote the use of the term "Arab Jew". Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with any sources that speak of this (cultural) revival phenomenon, written from a reputable scholarly/authoritative authors, so as to better qualify this most and this espousing of the revival in verifiable terms? Thanks. Also, of course, whatever the scholarship finds it to be, it's clear that 'Arab' would not apply to Iranian Jews, but that's an aside.El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that as a result of the very nature of the modern Israeli (Ashkenazi) understandings of the terms "Arab" and "Jewish", it is widely accepted that Jewishness and Arabness are irreconcilable concepts. But this is true only for the Ashkenazim, and non-Ashkenazim who have adopted their outlook. This isn't intended as an attack on what understandings Ashkenazim have or don't have on Jewishness. In fact, it's not irrational to see why to the Ashkenazim, Jewishness would inherently be tied with Europeanness (or Eastern Europeanness). Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultural traits are tied to people's past history, this affects how they are transmitted, manifested, synthesized, etc., okay... El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi notion of regarding Arab and Jewish as irreconcilable concepts, is exactly what has led to most Mizrahi protests (past and present) for the vindication of their heritage. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please cite a few (of these protests for the vindication of their heritage) for me? Thanks. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only difference is that, up until recently, Mizrahi calls for recognition and inclusion of what their (Arab) heritage has to offer to Israeli culture and society has been discounted by everyone since the establishment of the State of Israel. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But, above all other things, inclusion in Israel's establishment, within positions of influence, power. Yes, also recognition that their traditions be respected (i.e. not seen ethnocentrically, etc.), but not so much as a driving force in that movement, to my knowledge. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it is still largely dismissed by the modern Ashkenazi institution running Israel, and it is evident by merely seeing the refusal to accept and acknowledge that to be a Jew and an Arab are not contradictions in identities. The only difference today is that only recently has their plight been given any sort of acknowledged by the collective consciousness of mainstream Israeli society, whether negatively (as in most cases) or positively. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a said above, I'm not certain that this is a driving force, these concepts; whether in the Mizrahi public, or the activists. It is a political (even if they hilariously call it "apolitical"), social justice movement. Once I can review your sources, I'll be in a better position to comment. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that when the Mizrahim first arrived to Israel in the early 50's, they too viewed Europeaness and Jewishness as two irreconcilable concepts, yet because they weren't the ones running the country, THEY were the ones required to shed their ethnicity at Israel's door, which to their misfortune was the ethnicity which was to become the "enemy", in place of a homogenised form of Jewishness. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would not phrase it the way you do, but I get what you mean. Yes, it is interesting. But these Mizrahi cultural traits have been (accepted as) fairly mainstream for decades now. I'm not sure about this 'Arabization' role; at least not via these defintions, in these terms you set. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, to Jayjg, I see you haven't gone to Google up "minority circles". Pick up a dictionary. I'm not saying this to be a smart-arse, I truly mean it. You might learn that "circle" has more than one meaning, and that minority circle is in fact valid terminology, not a fabrication of my very own. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

We can use currents or groups or circles; I'm not sure why this should be a big deal. Let's try to focus on the fundamentals for now. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oriental and Mizrachi

Mizrachi also means Eastern. But Oriental shouldn't be used for a different reason, and that is because it is the name of the race of Chinese people, Japanese people, etc.... 68.80.133.163 07:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Oriental means the same thing as Asian. → JarlaxleArtemis 07:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "oriental" means "eastern", not "asian". The newspeak "Asian" is a recent PC invention. "Oriental" is the opposite of "Occidental". There is nothing any more wrong with using "Oriental" to refer to Mizrachim than there is with calling a train from Paris to Istanbul the Orient Express. On the other hand, if this article is translated to the Simple English wikipedia, then I'd agree with you. Let's not edit to the least common denominator here tho. Tomer 20:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Orient" and "Oriental" have been used in English to refer to both Near and Far Eastern countries, including the Middle East, China, Japan, and India. For example, Mizrahi Jews are often referred to as Oriental Jews, while the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies focuses on Africa as well as the Middle East and East Asia. (see: Oriental). -- ElC

Farming abilities of the Mizrahim and socialsim of Ashkenazim

Although I kept it in my edit, I have to wonder if there is in fact any proof that the Mizrahim were indeed not very good farmers. Also, I eliminated the part in "Mizraḥim in modern Israel" that said the Mizrahim were less socialistic than Israeli Ashkenazim because (1) it doesn't seem to be well supported and (2) it doesn't seem to be significant--or at least it certainly doens't belong in the paragraph it was in.

Now that I think about it, what is meant by "modern Israel"? This section appears to be primarily historical, so if "modern Israel" refers to Israel at the present time, then the whole section seems mostly irrelevant. If, however, "modern Israel" refers to the post-1948 ("modern") state of Israel then the section is more relevant.

Also, what in particular is disputed in this section? I don't see the section specifically cited anywhere else in the Talk page. If the POV problem has already been resolved then I will eliminate the stop-hand, and if the POV problem remains can we know what it is so it can be eliminated?

Theshibboleth 23:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing about that edit that in any way implies that Mizrachim (by all accounts a far from cohesive "group") were "bad at farming". It simply says that the collectivized moshavim were unsuccessful. Why? I suspect that it had to do with incompatibilities between the ideology promoted by those running the moshavim (non-Mizrachim) and the mizrachim who were actually doing all the work. Preach socialism and every Jew is responsible for his brother all you want, to a non-socialist idealogue, it's Napoleon the pig preaching, and inspiration sinks below 0...especially in light of the fact that the Mizrachi communities were, "to a man", so to speak, religiously devoted, if not so fervently as charedim, and the anti- or irreligious attitudes of those who ran the vast majority of kibbutzim and moshavim in those days would have been a severe disincentive to coöperation. My speculation, all of it, but I submit to you that it's just as valid as yours... :-p Tomer 03:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Racism of European Whites Yet Again - Remember that from the pure Jewish/Israeli Point of View (Which Does Not Yet Exist), the Middle East is Central and the Oriental is East from that And the Occidental West from that. At the end of the Day, the Majority of Jews are not White, and that's what causes this kind of Supreme ignorance. It is the same supreme ignorance that founded the Modern State of Isreal. The Olive Skinned proper Jewish ancestors would be turning in their graves if they saw what was gowing on. Central Jews are the Ones from the Middle East who still retain all the characteristics of the Yehudi Originals - these imposters from Manhattan are no more Jewish than ET. It may also surprise you to know that there are indeed Jews in India and China, so what are we to call them? For the differences between them and the Middle Eastern Jews are far different to the Differences of the later to the European Jews (both Being Caucasian). The Whole notion of Shephardic and Ashenazik or whatever is proposterous and needs to be re-evaluated - ZA

"It may also surprise you to know that there are indeed Jews in India and China, so what are we to call them? For the differences between them and the Middle Eastern Jews are far different to the Differences of the later to the European Jews (both Being Caucasian)". Sorry, but people from the Indian Sub-Continent (and thus also Indian Jews, aka Bene Israel) are as caucasian as the Middle Eastern Jews and Ashkenazim you have pointed out - although, perhaps this may "surprise you to know". So I guess "the Whole notion of Shephardic and Ashenazik" and Bene Israel "or whatever is proposterous and needs to be re-evaluated". Al-Andalus 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

Giladi

Giladi appears to be a wild conspiracy theorist with no credibility; I have yet to find any reputable source which supports his claims, or which supports him as being anything more than a crank. However, I have found that reputable websites want nothing to do with him. For example, regarding "The Jews of Iraq" article which you wish to link, the Middle East Information Center has taken the article down, with the following explanation: The Article is no longer available because the credibility of the content is questionable. MEIC, works hard to host accurate information regardless of opinion. MEIC apologizes for any inconvenience. What makes you think the author or content is credible in any way? Jayjg 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As I thought. You failed to cite anyone/thing that could say anything more than that they questioned his credibility. That is the most classical way of discrediting people without evidence. I do believe you realise that DOES NOT constitute any proof that his evidence is false. In any case, the link that you provided doesn't exactly specify what article was previously hosted on that address, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt.

You ask me what makes me think the author is credible in any way? What? Apart from the fact that the Israeli government lacked the ability to disprove the assertions made in his book? If the assertions were false, the Israeli government would've eaten him alive and discredited him with hard facts. But they didn’t. If they could've assassinated his character and buried all the facts (fully knowing that his assertions are true, and thus they must have been able to have done this without shooting themselves in the foot) they would have done this. But it wasn't. The book was simply banned. Banning things is always the last resort.

Besides, the personal accounts of Iraqi Jews (only the few that I have personally conversed with) who have made yerida from Israel are similar to those made by Giladi. My guess is that it is common knowledge among Iraqi Jewry, but as always, their voices are silenced for the greater good of the State, and the atrocities that were perpetrated by Zionists against other Jews (for G-d’s sake) in their demented quest (my opinion) to create the State of Israel are forgotten, and if not forgotten, are banned.

Just realise Jayjg, A LOT of people also assert (including most of the Jews who lived in Arab lands) that the information officially propagated by the state of Israel (the only version sanctioned by Zionist accounts, whether right or wrong) as to their “perilous” situation in Muslim Arab lands, and the situation with their neighbours, was an exaggerated fabrication, and thus also questionable. Should the link propagating this account also be removed? Yes, it should be removed, if only another link with a differing point of view is removed, yet both are equally as questionable. At most the situation of Arab Jews was no different than how other non-Muslims Arabs were treated in Arab lands, and especially no where near how European Jews were treated throughout different periods of time in Christian European history. The reality is, the climate became perilous in the culminating years of their history in Arab lands. And we know why this was, and who incited it.

So, just cite a concrete source that discredits him without a shadow of a doubt. Al-Andalus 04:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC).

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. Anyone can put claim anything; provide evidence that Giladi is a respectable source quoted on reasonably unbiased and encyclopedic websites. Jayjg 02:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the burden of proof is also on you. Either take accept the link, or delete both. Deal with it. I'm not going to be bullied by your tactics, they may have worked elsewere. But you're in for a fight mate. Al-Andalus 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)'.

I'd prefer not to fight; please just provide some indication that the link and source is encyclopedic and credible. Thanks. Jayjg 08:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Credible to whose criteria? to yours I assume. The fact remains, Giladi's accounts of why Mizrahi flight from their native countries has not been dismatled as lies, where as Israel's "official" (Zionist) account has been (if not shown to be a outright lies, at the very least sensationalist). Of the two, only the pro-Zionist account is the one which has so far been able to be shown as an exageration. Au contraire, Giladi's account hasn't been able to be disputed. It's not popular, true, but his quotes have not been disclaimed by the Israeli government.

Credibility of either account is in the POV of the individual, that's why they are provided as links, and not explicitly quoted in the article itself. Al-Andalus 07:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC).

Not sure if it's productive for me to get involved, but here goes: what has been written on it, though, both supportively and criticism-wise, by scholars who specialize in this field? It was banned, what were the reasons given? This ban notwithstanding, how notable of a work is it? It isn't a matter of balancing POVs against each other so much, as it is, establishing reputability. But one must be prepared to do a bit of work in order to provide even the preliminaries. I, for one, would wager that there are reputable criticism of both the Israeli govt. and the Giladi et al. positions; what is easy often is not worthwhile, etc. El_C 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for some evidence of encyclopedic worth and fewer personal attacks. Jayjg 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Copied from WP:RM. Dragons flight 19:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jew → Mizrahi – Move so article title may conform to articles such as Ashkenazi (and not "Ashkenazi Jew") and Sephardi (not "Sephardi Jew"). Cannot move because Mizrahi is currently a redirect page. Al-Andalus 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose, then sign your poll submission with ~~~~

• Support -מזרחים (ובצורה הפחות מקובלת - מזרחיים) הם קבוצה חברתית המורכבת מעולים השייכים ליהדות המזרח. El_C 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Your vote indicates that you view "the other" as a good way to lump people together. Why not call the Beta Israel and Bnei Menashe as Mizrachim then? According to what you say, such a categorization is not only "logical" and "reasonable", but questioning it is just plain stupid. Wrong wrong wrong. But maybe it's just the drugs... :-p Tomer 11:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, do take it easy with them drugs. Regardless, in Hebrew it's מזרחים and אשכנזים, and I'm inclined to follow that convention. El_C 11:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't want to argue about it too much, but it's not a "convention", it's a "convenience", and a rather insulting one at that. Tomer 11:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • Argumentation or lack thereof notwithstanding, I'm afraid I'm not entirely following the basis for your protest. El_C 11:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. While "Ashkenazi" and "Sephardi" (or more correctly "Sfaradi") refer to a largely scattered in some cases, but still identifiable cultural subgrouping of Jewish communities, "Mizrachi" is a categorization made as an almost racist lumping together of "everyone 'other'". As I've said elsewhere, and at other times, the differences between the variously tagged "Mizrachi" communities are at least as diverse, if not moreso than those that distinguish us Sfaradim from Ashkenazim. Saying that we should move Mizrachi Jew in accordance with the namespace positions of Ashkenazi and Sephardi is tantamount to embracing the racist ideology of the early Zionists who invented the term to begin with. If the word had wider currency in English, I'd probably feel differently, but even in Israel, in Hebrew, nobody really knows what "מזרחי" means, and for us to accept a nebulous adjective as a well-established noun is not only insulting, but a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Tomer 11:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is, indeed, a broad term and its historical origins can and should be qualified accordingly. Following claims of original reserach, I'm inclined to have reputable research presented which affirms the above argument — the distinction between Hebrew and Enbglish usage along those reasons. El_C 11:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, note that the Hebrew Misplaced Pages has four articles (מזרחים ,יהדות המזרח, יהדות אשכנז ,אשכנזים), which makes sense to me. El_C 12:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Great. So you embrace a worldview in which we sfaradim don't exist at all. A secret wish perhaps?  :-p Tomer 12:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I embrace no such worldview, please refrain from such insinuations, even in jest, and avoid personalizing this issue (it isn't personal to me). Anyway, I am preplexed you find it amounts to that (again, on what basis does the word "Jew" remedies any of this?). You do not appear to be taking great effort to elucidate this key component, despite repeated querries on my part. El_C 12:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Despite my erstwhile contributions to the article in question, I'd like it to go away entirely, in favor of <shudder>Arab Jew, Persian Jew, and Kurdish Jew (since that's really what's entailed in the discussion of Mizrajim). I'm going to bed now. I have class in 2 hours and need to get at least a halfhour's rest. Ciao belli! Tomer 12:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • Upon your return, please be more straight forward and less hostile; assume goodfaith not telepathy. I confess to still being confused about the basis behind your unecessarily heated protests. The question I pose is whether the Hebrew word/term Mizrahi(m) is more well-known or scholarly in English as "Mizrahi Jew"? If so, please provide some sources to that effect. I really have no strong opinion on this, either way, I will gladly change my vote to oppose if the evidence so warrants. El_C 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • he differences between the variously tagged "Mizrachi" communities are at least as diverse, if not more so than those that distinguish us Sfaradim from Ashkenazim. I don't understand why the article can't cover this. Which confuses me, as per your position. El_C 12:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I wasn't particularly clear the first time around. IMNOTSOINCREDIBLYHO, the "solution" to this is not to move Mizrahi Jew to Mizrahi, but rather far preferably to move Sephardi and Ashkenazi to Sephardi Jew and Ashkenazi Jew, respectively. Tomer 12:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't have a strong opinion on that, either. My questions above remain unanswered, however. So, IMNSHO... they should be. But that can wait for another occasion. El_C 13:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
                • The real issue for me actually has nothing to do with the racism that invented the term, but with the notion of using adjectives as article names. What's next? Thorough → Thorough (book) so we can make Thorough a disambig so that we can have an article Thorough (adjective)? Transparency → Transparent? Sponge → Spongy? Clarity → Clear? Hardness → Hard? :-p Tomer 02:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
                  • I'm not sure I entirely understand that adjective bit. Do you support renaming Ashkenazi into Ashkenazi Jew? El_C 01:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Never mind, I see above that you do. Still, I want to know what other editors feel about the adjective argument. El_C 01:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Also, is Spongy the quality of really being a sponge? TIA. :) El_C 01:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mizrahim are not "ethnic division", even if {{Jew}} claims otherwise, so comparison with Ashkenazim and Sephardim is irrelevant. · Naive cynic · 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Spongy Contd.

I think the articles should all be moved, to Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, and Mizrahi Jews, and Jewish American should be move to American Jews, much like the current Bukharan Jews, Cochin Jews, Yemenite Jews, Persian Jews, Lithuanian Jews etc. articles. Most of the "History of" articles should also be moved to similar names, e.g. History of the Jews in Hungary moved to Hungarian Jews. Jayjg 19:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What about Mizrahi Jews? Intuitively, pluralizing makes sense to me. El_C 19:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggested. Jayjg 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Note, though, the opening paragraph (which I will cite in full) in Professors Yinon Cohen and Yitchak Haberfeld's '"Gender, Ethnic, and National Earnings Gaps in Israel: The Role of Rising Inequality" (The Pinhas Supir Center for Development, 2003). Israeli society is characterized by a national cleavage between Jews and Arabs, and within the Jewish society between Jews whose parents immigrated to Israel from Europe and America (henceforth, Ashkenazim), and those from Asian and African origin (henceforth, Mizrahim). Over the years, a clear hierarchy in the stratification system has been institutionalized in Israeli society in general, and in the labor market in particular, where Ashkenazim are at the top of the socioeconomic ladder, Mizrahim are in the middle, and the Arab citizens of Israel occupy the bottom echelons of the socioeconomic hierarchy. Not surprisingly, within each group, men are above women, at least with respect to their earnings. /hides from Tomer El_C 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

El_C writes: /hides from Tomer Tomer responds: Good idea, since the source is obviously either incredibly flawed, or we Sfaradim were exuded from the muck of hmmm... must be Australia, or else we merely imagine our own existence... (what do the Hindus call that? maya?) Tomer 10:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much! I aim to agitate please! Answer: from Africa! Anyway, and even seriously, you might find this article of interest; I encourage you to read it then, these objections notwithstanding. /switches hiding spot. El_C 11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, all fun aside, (a) the article seems to clearly indicate that Jews from Africa are Mizrajim and (b) Sfaradim apparently just simply don't exist . That said, my sfaradi ancestors are from <gasp> Holland (oh n03s! Europe!). And btw, I can find you whereëver you try to hide. Don't you know? We Jews are EVERYWHERE!!! :-p Tomer 11:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, though, easily sweet-talked! At any rate, just from having glanced at the body, it appears to be an instructive study. Please do give the whole thing a read whenever you get a chance, I'd be interested in your impression of it. Same goes with Jay. El_C 11:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I just now noticed how you'd entitled this subsubsection :-p. I'll try to give it at least a once-over before shabath 2moro and get back to you...possibly not until sunday tho. ciao bello, e sciabata buona. Tomer 11:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the study yet, but FWIW, I completely agree with Jay's recommendation to move them all (except for the articles that deal specifically with actual history ) to pluralized X Jews articles, and to create appropriate redirects. Tomer 21:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I also support Jay's proposal as an imporvement over the current name. El_C 10:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey El_C, I finally read that report. It's interesting, but ultimately not very informative, since it uses rather shaky criteria for its division of ethnic groups as well as concentrates on older folks and new immigrants (apparently) rather than on the population as a whole. While studying income disparity is not one of my hobbies, I'd say a real study of the subject certainly seems warranted based on the conclusions brought forth by the paper in question. לשנה טובה תכתיבו Tomer 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Studying income disparity should be one of your interests (!). Thanks, I appreciate that assessment; it's difficult to find better studies that have been translated to English (or at least, ones available to moi). Belated !שנה טובה :) El_C 00:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article name should be Mizrahi Jews. Mizrahi by itself (in the box on top of the page) is very confusing, because of the Mizrahi movement which is largely Ashkenazi. More important however is changing the name of the article Jew into Jews. All peoples and ethnicities should be plural. I made this change in the Dutch Misplaced Pages and propose the same change here. gidonb 12:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• No comment! El_C 01:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. I see no concensus here for the move to merely Mizrahi from Mizrahi Jew. There is some support for pluralizing everything to "Jews", which I am not opposed to, but it hasn't really been clearly agreed to either. For the record, there is a naming convention for using singular nouns in article titles, but the name of a group of people is one of the exceptions where plural is considered okay. Dragons flight 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

North African Jews

Shouldn't David Levy and Silvan Shalom be listed as Sephardi Jews as opposed to Mizrahi Jews? I believe that they are from North Africa, and not Asia. 64.231.162.68 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Jews indigenous to North Africa are Mizrahi. It is the non-indigenous Jews of North Africa - the ones that originated in Spain and Portugal and then fled to North Africa during the Spanish or Portuguese Inquisition - that are Sephardim. Al-Andalus 08:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Is there an evidence that David Levy and Silvan Shalom are indigenous to North Africa and are not descended from European Sephardic Jews?

Thanks for the info.

I have made a few changes in the paragraph on languages so as to make things clearer. Regarding "indigenous". It is a mistake usually made by Jews of Turkey for instance about Morocco. There was high mobility within Morocco and between Morocco and Spain so there is no particular place or language associated with Sephardi Jews or Maghreban Jews. The great majority are Sephardim insofar as they practiced the Castillan rite. The others called themselves Palestinian Jews.

"Mizrahim are..." The Mizrahi identity has been imposed by outsiders upon people who heard the term for the first time in the 1970's and who still don't relate to it. So I'd be careful with phrases such as "Mizrahim are..." Perhaps "are considered" ?

Too many problems with this entry due, no doubt, to die-hard stereotypes. Sylvia O.W.

"Origins", "Originate"

Al-Andalus, you keep changing the disambiguation at the top to read that Mizrahi Jews have their "origins" or "originate" in the countries they most recently come from. This an unsupported claim that defies both conventional history and their own beliefs, which says they generally "originated" in Kingdom of Judah. I'm going to restore the lead to Arniep's version; please propose changes here, and please ensure they address the concerns I have raised. Thanks. Jayjg 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that my comment below was in response to a personal attack from Al-Andalus's (since removed) in which, among other things, he described me as an "Ashkenazi collaborator." It looks kind of silly there all on its own now. Jayjg 23:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, could you please actually respond to the issues raised, rather than resorting to personal attacks? Thanks. Jayjg 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious sentence altogether; it wasn't necessary, and other articles don't bother with that kind of thing either. Jayjg 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Jayjg have a problem with "This article deals with the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East and North Africa. For the organization of the Religious Zionist Movement, please see Mizrachi.". Even this last edit was not to Jayjg's liking. It no longer says native, indigenous, origin or originate - terms that Jayjg disaproved, lest they validate the Mizrahim's Jewishness more than his. You're a European Jew, deal with it. Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda. Al-Andalus 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

It's both awkward English and inaccurate, duplicated and too long for a disambiguation opening anyway. Mizrahi Jews original in Israel, not in some mythical "largely contiguous area", Gruzim certainly don't live in that "contiguous area", and Yemenite Jews are arguably not even Mizrahim. The truth is that the term "Mizrahi" is a modern term used as a grab-bag for Jewish communities whose main commonality is that they are not Ashkenazi or Sephardi, as the article itself points out. Please stop reverting, and get consensus for your proposed insertions. And if any of your future comments refer to me personally, rather than article content, or contain other personal attacks or violations of Misplaced Pages:Civility policies, I will simply not bother responding. Jayjg 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, if Jay is an "Ashkenazi collaborator" , I must be a "Sfaradi collaborator"... The language you've proposed contains English words, but the grammar and syntax is decidedly not English... in fact, it's so horrendous that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean! Your nonsensical claims that Jay's disapproval of the language have something to do with his being a "European Jew" are disingenuous at best, and a gratuitous ad hominem attack at worst... in neither case, however, is your position advanced; the text you've proposed is just plain bad, regardless of whence Jay's ancestors hail. In fact, the "English" with which you formulate your defense of your position is so unspeakably bad that it's not just your proposed wording I don't understand, it's the arguments themselves! What on God's green earth is "Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda." supposed to mean? The only thing I can imagine is "Don't deprive Mizraḥim of their origins , history and identity for your personal agenda "... Al-Andalus...seriously. These outbursts do nothing to strengthen any point you think you might have, and the statements you make on the subject make you sound increasingly ill-informed. If you're descended from Mizrajim, fine. If it means that much to you, drop the shroud of Islam and reclaim your Jewish heritage. You can't live forever with one foot in each of two houses. Otherwise stop. Clearly something is preventing you from discussing the subject rationally. Until you can, perhaps it'd be best for you to work on fixing the other areas of your life that need more work. Misplaced Pages will survive while you sort out your life... Tomer 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"drop the shroud of Islam and reclaim your Jewish heritage"? Who said anything about Islam? Islam has nothing to do with my herritage, but Arab culture does. Arab culture and Islam are not the one and same thing. Most Muslims are not Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. Tomer, I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. It is that precise thinking, that equation of Arab and Islam that was propagated by the Zionist founders of currently un-holy land of Israel, that denies the culture, language and identity of the Mizrahi of Arab countries. What is most offensive is the fact that no one ever repremands the Ashkenazim for living forever with one foot in each of two houses. What's worse is that that European limbo of Ashkenazi identity is what is considered authentic Jewishness. "European Jewishness" is not an oxymoron, is it? Al-Andalus 13:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I cut and paste alot as I type. What was meant to be displayed was "Don't obscure the origins, history, and identity of the Mizrahim for your personal agenda." Al-Andalus 13:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

My two cents: Since the article explains in detail who this community is, may I suggest that the hat-text could simply say something like "This is an article about certain sub-ethnicities of the Jews. For the Religious Zionist organization, please see Mizrachi." I understand Jayjg's objection, and it is not likely to be only his, but I would say on the other side that they were not Mizrahim while they were part of pre-diaspora Jewry: by the "ultimate origin" standard, all humans presumably trace back to some one place, probably in east central Africa. The issue of origin in this article is not "where did the Jews originate" but "where did the Mizrahim originate". -- Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd prefer to avoid, like the plague, use of the term "sub-ethnicity" or any variants thereof. Also, if you understand the content of the article, you'd know "the Mizrahim" didn't "originate", they were invented by the Zionist racists in the early days of the State. If you reread the article and still don't understand that, let me know and I'll see what I can do to rewrite it to make that point clearer... Tomer 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to find a better word than sub-ethnicities, feel free to suggest one. You will notice, by the way, I didn't say that they constituted a single sub-ethnicity of the Jews: clearly they don't. The word was deliberately plural. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I share Jayjg's concerns but I think that Jmabel's compromise is very reasonable and probably the best for the article. --Briangotts (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're aware, but Al-Andalus wants to insert the phrase in two separate places in the article, not just the disambiguation. In the opening paragraph Al-Andalus wants to define Mizrahi Jews as the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East (Southwest Asia) and North Africa; that is to say, their ancestors never left this largely contiguous region. It currently states that they are Jews whose ancestors resided in communities which were in continuous contact with the rest of the Jewish world, yet were neither Ashkenazi Jews nor Sephardi Jews. I argue that Al-Andalus's wording is both poorly written and inaccurate. In reality "Mizrahi" is a word used to designate Jews who are neither Sephardi or Ashkenazi, but who (unlike, for example, Beta Israel) were in continuous contact with rest of the Jewish world. It has nothing to do with any "largely contiguous region", whatever that means - Georgia, for example, is not in the Middle East, and it's not even agreed wheter or not Yemenite Jews are Mizrahi Jews. Also, they are not "pre-diaspora Jewry", but very much part of the Jewish diaspora. Perhaps the largest Mizrahi Jewish population are Iraqi Jews, descendents of the Jews of the very first Jewish diaspora. Jayjg 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus' proposal is equal parts nonsensical and unacceptable. I don't care if their ancestors never left "this largely contiguous region" (this WHAT?!) ... Under further consideration, I am of the opinion that the most ridiculous part of this entire discussion is that it's taken more than 10 seconds, cumulatively, of otherwise-productive editors' valuable time... Tomer 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition disputed

To me, the major problem of this article is an incorrect definition that portrays Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews as mutually exclusive. Nothing is less true. Sephardic Jews include the majority of the Jews from the moslim countries and some beyond, as well as the Jews from Southern Europe. Mizrahi Jews include some additional communities in and around the Middle East which were not Spehardic, but excludes the Jews of Southern Europe. Not only are they partially inclusive of each other, but the majority of the Sephardic Jews are Mizrahi and the majority of the Mizrahi Jews are Sephardic. gidonb 18:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. In reality, Sephardi Jews are the descendants of the 1492 Jewish exiles from Spain. The term Sephardi is often used loosely to refer to various Mizrahi groups as well, but this is inaccurate. Jayjg 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The former is a very narrow definition. By the equally valid, but wider definition Sephardic Jews include all who (used to) pray by the Sephardic prayer version. I believe that this dual definition should be included when referring to Sephardic Jews. gidonb 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Read any mainstream definition of these terms and you will see that Sephardic refers to a very narrow definition just like Jaiyg said. The only ambiguity between the terms is when it is difficult to ascertain the ancestry of a population.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, both definitions are quite widely used. But perhaps Sephardic Jews is a better place to deal with this issue. For example, both the common wide and the narrow definition can be included there and it can be mentioned that Misplaced Pages uses the narrow definition. Here we should strive for a core definiontion which excludes the words Sephardic Jews to solve the ambiguity that it introduces. gidonb 00:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi invented the term "Mizrahi" because they would not allow the term "Arab Jews", "Middle Eastern Jews", etc. They imposed the sterile term upon the Middle Eastern and North African Jewish people with the only intention to cloud and obscure their origins and identity. The euro-centric Zionist founders of the modern "Jewish" state of Israel tolerated Mizrahi immigration to Israel, but "leave your languages, culture, ethnicity and identity at customs. We can't have Arab Jews, we only need and can only have Jews, to bolster our numbers. You're lucky we let you "Mizrahi" in at all. Arabs (non-Jewish Palestinians; and there were indigenous Jewish Palestinians, though much less than the minority Christian Palestinians, let alone the majority Muslim Palestinians) we already have". G-d forbid, ownership of "Mizrahi" has now been taken by the people it was imposed upon, but the Ashkenazi powers that be will now try to one again control the definition. Jayjg, I find your attempts to obliterate any piece of information that the Mizrahim are of Near Eastern and North African origin, pathetic and ethnocidal. Now, above taking out origin, originate, come from, native, indigenous (to top it all off) you have deleted the actual geographical region from which they came from. Why is it that on the Ashkenazi Jews article there is absolutely no problem in mentioning that the Ashkenazi are that Jews that originate from Northern and Eastern Europe? I'll tell you why! Because the Ashkenazi institution that promotes this believes their Judaism and they as Jews are the template of Judaism, and anything that diverges from it is the odd one out. Judaism did not originate in Europe, and most of those Jews are barely the seed of Abraham. To mention anything that may reveal that fact, in another article of Jews (Mizrahi Jews) that have actually resided in the Middle East for millennia, is then suppressed.

Jayjg, your views are extremely colonial, and dare i say now ethnocentric and bordering on racist. To you there is no conflict with Europe and Judaism, being a White European and a Jew at once, a "European Jew". There is no contradiction, right? In your colonial mentality, Judaism is instrinctly interwoven with Europe. Europe, Deutschland, Ukrayina, Hassidism, Orthodoxy, 11th century Polish shtreimels, bekishes, and gartels, Ha Shoah, kugel, latkes, bagels, shuls, Yiddish, Steinbergs, Rosenthals, etc; these are all which define Judaism and Jewishness in your narrow world view. You have no probblem in associating all these foreign elements to Judaism as actually being Jewish and defining Judaism and Jews! They are mentioned countless times in articles around Misplaced Pages. They do not define Jews or Judaism; they define Ashkenazi Jewry and Ashkenazim, that's it, nothing more. But dare one single article mention anything else as Jewish, then let's see what happens. Even mentioning the region of the Mizrahim cannot be done, as you deleted it. Mizrahim is now someone who is "not Ashkenazi and not Sephardi". Anything else? Before you even put Mizrahim were the Jews "which existed" in the Middle East and North Africa. What the hell is wrong with you? Which existed??? In a way, I'm glad this has turned out the way it has. It has shown your Eurocentric colonial Zionist ways, and this, your actions and edits prevent you from denying. Al-Andalus 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

If you were right here Al-Anadalus this is the part where I would hit you with a rolled up newspaper. "NO AL!, THATS ENOUGH, CUT IT OUT!" Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 03:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If Al-Andalus is seriously saying that the Sho'a affected only Ashkenazim, after I get done figuratively beating the crap out of him for his unacceptable ignorance and unspeakable stupidity, I only have three words left to say...namely: "blah blah blah"... Yes, I get sick of the uppitiness of Ashkenazim sometimes, and yes I think Ashkenazim are far-too-often arrogantly ignorant of the rest of the Jewish world, but such an assertion is completely inexcusable. Tomer 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would notice this. I'm glad it was you. If you look at the page history you will notice I added the Shoah in a second edit of my post. I did this for a very good reason; to once again show Ashkenazi monopolization of Judaism and Jews. Of course I know the Shoah affected ALL Jews, full stop. It affected the Sephardim in Spain, the Balkans, it affected the Jews of Italy. With the medling of Germany in the Middle East it also affected Jews there and in North Africa. But go to the Shoah article, and what does it say?

• "Shoah or Ha Shoah (literally denoting a "catastrophic upheaval") is the Hebrew term for the genocide of two thirds of the European Jewish population during the Holocaust".

Apparently everything is about the European Jews, the Ashkenazim. I hope my point is clear.

To go through Misplaced Pages and de-Ashkenize all article related to Jews and Judaism would be so tiresom, because it is everywhere. It is also almost impossible because of reverts by Zionist Ashkenazi status quo-ers like Jayjg! The equation "authentic Jewishness and Jews" = "Ashkenaziness and Ashkenazim" is everywhere. I've made changes here and there for quite a while now, but it's just SO MUCH. From the article on "Jewish" surnammes when all it listed was German names, to recently Latkes, where it was a "Jewish" food. No, it is not Jewish food, it's Ashkenazi Jewish food. Furthermore, latkes shouldn't even be trademarked as food of the Ashkenazim either, since it is Eastern European food, made by Europeans and eaten by Europeans (hence also made and eaten by Ashkenazim, a EUROPEAN PEOPLE!). So, that's why I added Shoah. I hope you got my point. By the way, affter establishing that the Shoah is not an Ashkenazi trademark, let me say one thing, though it may affected Jews everywhere, the Shoah does not define Judaism or what it is to be a Jew either. Judaism and the history of Jews are more than the Shoah. Al-Andalus 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

The place to deal with your concerns is at Talk:Shoah, not here. Tomer 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know, BUT I was replying to the post you made here as to my inclusion of the Shoah as Ashkenazi. Aside from that, I do hope you got my point. Al-Andalus 13:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Also, if this discussion is going to continue, I'm going to have to insist, Al-Andalus, that either you switch to speaking English, or else that you write in some language you actually understand. While you're doing a wonderful job of stringing English words together and ending them in random groups with periods, NOBODY IS REALLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So, if you can't use intelligible English, pick a language you KNOW, and one of us will translate for you for the rest of us. Thanks. Tomer 10:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Al-Andalus 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I know people are free to contribute to any article that they see fit, however I can't help but feel that Al-Andalus is misrepresenting himself as a Mizrahi Jew while he is in fact an Islamic Arab pushing a different agenda than he is suggesting. Although it doesn't make a real difference since it is important to argue with the the words and not the person, at the same time though it seems disingenuine and malicious that he is trying to defend the "oppressed" Mizrachi Jews from the perspective from one of their own even though he is in fact coming from an entirely different viewpoint. So please Andalus stop this irritating charade, it has gone on long enough.- Webster 09-11-05 3:16 am Pacific time

I think we would all be a lot more productive and efficient if we stopped discussing User:Jayjg and User:Al-Andalus and whoever, and whatever hidden or declared agenda they may have, and focused on Mizrahi Jews and how to make this article more accurate, more informative and clearer. If some of us still cannot resist the urge, they both have personal talk pages.--Doron 14:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let him say what he will of me. I'm an Islamic Arab? Is that an attempt at an insult? Who cares, you're half right though. I do identify as what you "insulted" me, but I'm not a Muslim. People of the Arab world can be Muslims, Christians, and, yes, Jews TOO you ignorant Zionist! You're typical, trying to assasinate and discredit the character of those who dare speak out to. Al-Andalus 13:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

It would probably clarify things if a paragraph is inserted into the defintion section of the article stating that, in addition to the more technically and historically correct usage of terms, Sephardi is also sometimes used (within a modern Israeli context, at least) to denote more loosely any non-Ashkenazi Jew, and that Mizrakhi can similarly be used to mean any non-Ashkenazi (i.e. non-Western) Israeli Jew who is explicitly not Sephardi, but whose family hails mostly from the non-Mediterranean communties of Africa and Asia, such as the communties of Cairo or Kabul. Of course, this technically incorrect usage is restricted to a more informal socio-cultural understanding of divisions of Israeli society that does make sense from a sociological point of view as a means to explain layers of coexisting Jewsish identities today. Am I not right? --Big Adamsky 17:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen "Mizrahi" used to mean "non-Ashkenazi" - I've only seen "Sephardi" used that way. Where have you seen "Mizrahi" used that way? Jayjg 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really remember, most likely I have simply heard rather than seen this usage. Note that it is intended to mean "the remainder of Jews, when both Ashkenazim and Sepharadim are subtracted". In other words a collective umbrella-term for the various mutually exclusive sub-groups who nonetheless do have certain traits in common.

I don't even think it's intended to mean that; it certainly doesn't include Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Cochin Jews, etc., and whether or not it includes Yemenite Jews is questionable. It is intended, as my wording above states, to include all non-Sephardi, non-Ashkenazi Jews who nevertheless kept in contact with the rest of the Jewish people. Jayjg 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, Jay. My point, however, was that, while exact or original definitions and etymologies are surely important in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, sometimes popular usage that is erroneous should be mentioned so as to avoid too much "linguistic snobbery". Our buddies from Yemen would most likely self-identify and be identified by others as Mizrakhim, and more loosely perhaps even as Sepharadim. It is incorrect, but it's really no biggie. :-]

Cochin Jews Mizrahi?

I think it's problematic to describe Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi" - the Cochin Jews appear to consist of at least two sub-communities, one ancient, and one about 400 years old (Paradesi Jews). While the latter are made up of both Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, I've never heard that the community as a whole is referred to as "Mizrahi". Jayjg 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

They'd certainly be shocked as hell to hear they are Mizrahi. They're about as Mizrahi as Jayjg. But they're sui generis, really, none of the big groupings really fits. Mizrahi least of all, though. If we pick another designation at random we'll do better. Babajobu 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, the designations Mizrahi, Sephardi and Ashkenazi are not entirely straightforward. That said, it is not unreasonable to include all the former and present Jewish communities of India and Ethiopia as part of the "Mizrahim". Regards, gidonb 17:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Gidon, Sephardi and Ashkenazi have strict definitions that are quite unambiguous, though Sephardi in particular has a more loose definition that is technically inaccurate but sometimes used. It is "Mizrahi" that is "not entirely straightforward", as it is a new term that is not well defined. That said, we cannot define Mizrahi ourselves, but use it the way others do. Jayjg 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to find a single reputable source that describes any of the Jews of Kerala as Mizrahi. Babajobu 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and Babayubu, the issue is that for all these groups there is no one way they are used. I say this as a social scientist who has done research on Jewish and Israeli ethnicities. gidonb 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Gidon, yeah, I definitely accept your point that these terms are fluid and inconsistently applied, and that if we are looking for a nice, clean formula for which Jews belong to which group, we'll remain permanently disappointed. But if we're going to characterize the Fort Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi", we really must be able to produce one published work that describes them as such. And my guess is that we won't find any such source. The origins of the Cochin community are so distinctive and so divorced from the Mizrahi heartland in the Middle East that Mizrahi seems to me a very infelicitous and unlikely term for them. Perhaps for the Jews in Northern India it'd be a bit less of a stretch. Babajobu 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that Al-Andalus has updated article to reflect that Cochin Jews do not fit comfortably with term "Mizrahi", but Baghdadi Jews do. I think this is much better, and I hope Cochin Jews don't creep back into the article. Babajobu 15:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition

As pointed out above, while the Ashkenazi and Sephardi are well-defined, there seems to be a problem defining the Mizrahi. I cannot help noticing that the article gives no actual reference to such a definition in the literature. Can anyone point us to some work on the subject? The definition in the article speaks of "continuous contact" with the rest of Jewry, the meaning of which is unclear to me. Have the Cochin Jews had less contact with the rest of Jewry than remote Kurdish communities? Surely there must be some scholar work that identifies which are the Mizrahi communities, not just guesswork.

I would like to note that contrary to the very strong distinction make in the article between Mizrahi and "everything non-Ashkenazi", the (presumably incorrect) definition of Mizrahi as non-Ashkenazi or non-European is very prevalent in modern Israel and has a central political role, from Independence through the Wadi Salib riots, the (Israeli) Black Panthers movement, Shas and the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow. Sami Shalom Chetrit in his book "The Mizrahi Struggle in Israel Between Oppression and Liberation, Identification and Alternative" clamps all non-Ashkenazis together as "Mizrahi", being an oppressed class, and draws parallels between Mizrahi and "Oriental" a la Edward Said (i.e., "Oriental" is everything not "Western"). While Chetrit has a somewhat radical agenda, I assure you that what he describes is a reality in Israeli socienty and politics.--Doron 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Denial and Racism

We should start looking at the Mizrahi Question outside of the Israeli and Middle Eastern context. A book I recomend "The Sephardim of Sydney" (of course, being written by an Ashkenazi, "Sephardim" is used in its "any non Ashkenazi Jew" ignorant definition). Apart from the title, it's good literature.

"The Sydney Jewish community is dynamic and vibrant, with many communal, social and religious institutions. This book investigates the Sephardic community of Sydney – their history, their experiences as new immigrants in a host society after arriving from traditional Moslem cultures, as well as the changes they have undergone since they arrived in Australia. The Sephardic community comprises about 5,000 of the 50,000 Jews in Sydney, whose majority reside in the eastern suburbs, in Sydney's multicultural inner city “ethnic belt”. Although the Sephardim share some cultural features with the Jewish majority, there are substantial differences: they emphasize their cultural heterogeneity. Their experiences are viewed through the prism of their relationship to both the Ashkenazim and the larger Anglo-Australian society. Their inability to acculturate and assimilate into the Ashkenazi and Australian groups contributes profoundly to their self-image and to ethnic marginalization."

"...share some cultural features with the Jewish majority..."? What "Jewish majority"? Are the Mizrahi not Jewish? See the Ashkenazi monopoly of Jewishness? At the most it should read "share some cultural features with the Ashkenazi majority". Ashenaziness does not define Jewishness!

"...inability to acculturate and assimilate into the Ashkenazi...groups"? See the Ashkenazi racism and arrogance present even in literature!

"A negative ethnic identity and self-rejection, enhanced by rejection from the Ashkenazim and Australians, has a major impact on their everyday life and their perception of their social standing, especially on the younger Sephardic generation. This issue has been particularly relevant since 1988, when the Australian government moved to restrict Asian immigration. This became a media issue, with the Ashkenazim taking the side of white Australians and seeing themselves as superior to the Afro-Asian Jewish Sephardim, who are viewed as “Asians” by both the Ashkenazim and the white majority. The result is a sense of “double rejection”, which pervades this group’s political and social standing."

Need I say more? To put it into context, Middle Easterners and North Africans are not "White" in this country. Whiteness is not defined by religious herritage, but by European racial origin, ie. European Christians, European Jews (Ashkenazim), European Muslims (Torbesh, etc.) Al-Andalus 14:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I kindly ask you to stick to improving the article. This debate, though interesting and important, is diverting our attention and there are other places in the web where it would be more appropriate.--Doron 16:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you get the aim of the post. It is so that we can indeed "stick to improving the article". How can we continue to improve the article when a user (of the same tendencies described in the review of that book) constantly prevents the addition of any information that would actually attribute the Mizrahim with their cultures, ethnicities, origins and identites, when anything actually having to do with the Mizrahi (that hasn’t been manufactured or is not sanctioned by those who invented the term Mizrahi in the first place) is not incorporated?

We have to wake up to ourselves and address this Zionist racism and denial, and acknowledge that it/he/she/they is preventing the development of an unbiased article reflecting ALL SIDES and ASPECTS of the Mizrahi, and not only those that fit an agenda and, while omitting everything else "just in case". This is especially true when said agenda is almost foreign to the subject "Mizrahi Jews", making the decrement of this article's NPOV even moreso unjustifiable. Al-Andalus 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

"European racial origin" doesn't really make sense. Ashkenazim are descended from Palestinian Jews who settled in Europe, and I think Sephardim are descended from Babylonian Jews who settled in Europe. And many "mizrahi" jews from North Africa have roots in Iberia which would make them of "european racial origin" as well would it not? Can you see why this is not the best term? Who is to even say that there is a european race? Europeans don't even all look alike. And European Jews are of middle eastern origin anyway, so its not the best term in any case.

Let the discussion move on...

I'm going to propose that we drop the previous discussion, since it's completely counterproductive. The purpose here is to improve the article, and none of the discussion that's taken place in the past 24 hours is even remotely geared toward doing so. In the interest of moving to a higher plane of discussion, let me start out by saying "yaddayaddayadda". OMG, the most relevant thing said all day. Let's stick to the ARTICLE, shall we, instead of to insulting theories about peoples' "personal agendas". Thanks, and good morning. Tomer 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Moroccan Jews

As I've noted above, in some social and political contexts, Sephardi Jews from Islamic countries are considered "mizrahi" in Israel. There has not been any concensus here on this matter. Earlier, I've removed David Levy from the Distinguished Mizrahi personalities list as he is not mizrahi by the strict definition, and now I see Amir Peretz has been added. I do think that the article lacks a proper discussion if the socio-political meaning of the term in Israel. On the other hand, there should be some sort of concensus on this matter. If Moroccan Jews are included, there are a whole lot of distinguished people that should be added to the list.--Doron 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this really needs to be sorted out, there's no use working on the rest of the article until we have some sense of how we're defining the term. Babajobu 08:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that Shas, the religious Sephardi party, has two non-Sephardi members of Knesset -- Amnon Cohen (Bukharan) and Meshulam Nahari (Yemenite).--Doron 23:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If only the Israelis didn't speak/confound Hebrew, things would be so much easier... TShilo12 07:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are a prescriptivist...--Doron 08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, but that's not my motivation here. I fully support discussing the Israeli usage of both Mizrachi and Sfaradi, as well as of Ashkenazi. That said, using Israeli usage alone (including the Academy's Ashkenazi-"Sefardic pronunciation"-centric "official" transliteration scheme) as the sole arbiter of "correct" usage is incorrect at best, insulting and misleading at worst. TShilo12 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration aside, nobody is advocating the "Israeli usage" as the sole usage, I merely ask it be mentioned. Though I would be very grateful if you could provide a reference to a non-"Israeli" "correct" definition of the term, which I have yet to see. And by the way, how is it insulting?--Doron 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that it should be mentioned. As for a non-Israeli definition, "Oriental Jews", the English translation of "Mizrachim", have been discussed often in non-Israeli settings, and long before the establishment of Israel. As for "insulting", I wasn't saying you were advocating adopting Israeli usage as "authoritative" wrt the meaning of Mizraḥi here, and thereby "insulting" anyone; my comment was more germane the discussion about the "accuracy" of the Academy's transliterations elsewhere, which I mentioned above, albeit parenthetically. TShilo12 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Strict definitions (yet to be established, it seems) aside, I re-added David Levy (again) as per .he. El_C 23:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What's "Mizrahi"?

I would be grateful if someone could refer me somewhere where I could learn what "Mizrahi Jew" means, which communities are commonly known as "Mizrahi" and where did this definition come from. From the definition in the introduction to this article, it appears Mizrahi Jews are not defined by a common origin, but rather by a lack thereof, and thus I cannot help feeling this definition had been applied to Mizrahi Jews, rather than self-designated. Why are Georgian Jews considered "Mizrahi" and Cochine Jews not? Is it because there is some fundamental difference between all Mizrahi communities and the Cochine community, or is it simply because nobody ever referred to Cochine Jews as Mizrahi, which Georgian Jews are referred to as such? Could someone informative shed some light please?--Doron 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

.He's מזרחים appears to currently be undergoing extensive revisions and I'm seeing various new scholarly sources (I think) that have been added. It's likely we can gain further insights not only from these additions, but attempting to engage editor there directly with these questions once she is done (or now). Ironically, I notice that the title of the first section which used to be called the problematic-ness of the Mizrachi concept ("בעיתיות המונח מזרחים") is now called the Mizrachi concept ("המושג מזרחים"). El_C 08:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew article views "Mizrahi" in quite a different way than the English article. It sees it in an Israeli socio-political context (which I have brought up before, the English article barely addresses this aspect), while the English article seems to refer to a different context, supposedly universal, of the term Mizrahi. From the Hebrew article it appears that "Mizrahi" is entirely an Israeli invention, while editors here argue that the term predates Israel and the Israeli view of the term is incorrect (and possibly offensive?). I've heard plenty about the term in the Israeli-context (and I intend to elaborate on this), but I would very much like to read about the term as it is defined in this article.--Doron 10:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also interested, even if it's original research, I'm still moderately interested (within reason!). El_C 10:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference has to do with whether or not the community was in (more-or-less) continual contact with the rest of the world Jewish community - yes for Gruzim, no for Cochin Jews. Jayjg 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you know where in the literature is this distiction made? And I'm not sure what it means, in what way were Bukharan Jews more in contact with the rest of Judaism than Cochin Jews?

I'm starting to seriously doubt what's written in this article. Encyclopaedia Judaica has no entry "Mizrahi", the closest thing they have is "Oriental Literature" which includes Sephardi literature in Spain and later North-Africa. On the other hand, in the Israeli front, Sami Shalom Chetrit in his book "The Mizrahi Struggle in Israel" asserts

יוצאי ארצות ערב והאיסלאם, ארצות הים התיכון והבלקן, מעולם לא הוגדרו "מזרחים" כקולקטיב, עד אשר הם החלו מגדירים עצמם "מזרחים" בשנות השמונים"

(Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, the Mediterranean and the Balkans, were never defined as "Mizrahi" as a collective, until they started defining themselves as "Mizrahi" in the 1980s), and

"עדות המזרח" היתה ועודנה במידה רבה ההגדרה הנפוצה ביותר באקדמיה

("edot hamizrah" was and still is largely the most common term in the academic literature) and later he quotes Carl Frankenstein (ק. פרנקנשטיין, 1951, "למושג הפרימיטיביות". מגמות ב' 4, 339--352)

בדברנו על "עדות המזרח" אנו מתכוונים ליהודי צפון אפריקה ממרוקו ועד מצרים, ליהודי הלבנון, סוריה, טורקיה, עיראק וכורדיסטאן, ליהודי פרס ואפגניסטן, קווקאז ובוכרה, ליהודי תימן ועדן.

(When we speak of "edot hamizrah", we mean the Jews of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, the Jews of Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan, the Jews of Persia and Afghanistan, the Caucasus and Bukhara, the Jews of Yemen and Aden). These are just a sample, throughout the book, as well as the quoted literature, no distinction is made between Sephardi and other non-Ashkenazi communities. Mind you, that the author is a scholar on the subject, as well as a radical "Mizrahi" activist (and bears a Moroccan surname), so I can't see how this Misplaced Pages article can go so far as to claim that "to include Mizraḥim with Sephardim may be considered culturally insensitive or ignorant"!

I am yet to encounter any reference in the literature that confirms the view of this article with regards to the term "Mizrahi".--Doron 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bring on the sources. :) El_C 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem, saying this without taking the time to read the preceedings above (I really don't have time today)... "Oriental Jews" is a very old (going back to at least the 15th Century CE afaik) appellation, i.e., "eidoth hamizrach"... That said, Mizrachim in Israel today are not defined according to the traditional understanding of the term (which was confined primarily to gruzim, bukhorim, parsim and kurdish and mesopotamian Jews, not as a unit, but as a source), but rather, according to the , racist antireligious ashkenazi Zionists as "anyone not Ashkenazi, nor identifiably Sfaradi (i.e., civilized, but not Ashkenazi)". This stereotype has caused a blurring, indeed a slurring of the meaning in modern Israel, where terms in the vernacular are myopically believed to be a reflection of the truest interpretation of their traditional meaning. Tomer 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So why isn't anybody providing a single source that shows the term 'edot hamizrah' is indeed so old? Why isn't anybody providing a source that defines or describes this supposedly old term? Where did you come up with 15th century?--Doron 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that my "confusion" is from reading too much Yekke stuff lately... as this article demonstrates, the "old use" of the term "Oriental Jews" may be a reference to Galitzianers (and possibly Litvaks), and later to Chasidim, as opposed to "Occidental Jews", as Yekkes. Tomer 03:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, however, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these citations refer to Mizrachim as we know them today, not to Galitzianers and Chasidim... Tomer 03:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Could someone summarize, preferably neutrally, what is currently disputed about the article? I gather that one disputed point is whether Mizrahi and Sephardi are mutually exclusive. Is anything else in dispute? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As expressed in the discussion above, I dispute:

• The definition of "Mizrahi" Jews that is given in the introduction of the article and that affects the entire article, on the grounds that nobody here appears to be able to justify it from any published source. While I can accept this usage may be in use, I am yet to be convinced that it indeed is in use. Certainly I am not convinced that it is the main usage of the term.
• In Israel, the term has a different, socio-political meaning, that has been studied extensively and has great importance. The sentence "Sephardi has in some modern contexts acquired the meaning of 'non-Ashkenazi Jew', however, to include Mizrahim with Sephardim may be considered culturally insensitive or ignorant" completely ignores this meaning, and I strongly dispute it in particular even if the rest of the article is correct.

Unless somebody can come up with references that justify the definition of "Mizrahi" as it is given in the article, it appears to me that the article ought to be rewritten, perhaps in line with the Hebrew article.--Doron 07:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to come up with a definition that can be cited to credible sources. Until that's done, I don't think there's any point in doing other work on the article. Babajobu 11:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've raised my concerns about this article, and I am yet to see any reference that confirms this article's correctness. Unless you are all combing the library right now for an appropriate reference, I intend to rewrite the article to conform with the Hebrew article.--Doron 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron, I believe this is a good idea. The Hebrew articles define Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews better than the English articles. I have commented on this issue in the past. gidonb 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's what I intended to do —well, not to write it, but translate .he's, which in light of changes and being perpetually out of it, never happned. El_C 07:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's those damned drugs! :-D Tomer 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it this the place where I pick up my free drugs! El_C 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Update

I've updated the definition of "Mizrahi" to reflect some of the concerns here (the definition given for Ashkenazi Jews does not seem to be any better). I also propose taking off the "dispute" tag--but first wanted to see how people react to the changes. If you have any problems, by all means go ahead and edit the article yourself. Pointing to the Hebrew article and saying that's better doesn't do anyone any service. Aucaman 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is still not resolved. I do not agree with the assertions made in this article, and I am yet to see anything in this article sourced. The contents of the Hebrew article are what I am familiar with, and it is well sourced. I'll translate it to replace this article when I find the time, unless of course you can address my concerns, given above.--Doron 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, Fascinating and Necessary

Shalom, Shlama, Salam. Three languages that are an integral part of my daily life, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I've tried to follow the discussion(very intense and quite dense!!) and hopefully will have the time to give my 2 cents. Being of Iraqi origin(my dad is Baghdadi and my mum is Zakhoyi, from Zakho in Northern Iraq)and Israeli Jewish i find it amazing that until now individuals and communities are struggling to identify themselves and resist being identified by others. Personally, i don't consider myself an Arab although i learnt Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic from my father's side and neither does my father's family consider themselves "Arab" seeing that our presence in Iraq pre-dated the Arab-Islamic invasion and conquest. However, they are comfortable with Arabic being an integral part of their culture and daily lives, although dominant political ideologies have made this increasingly difficult and problematic. When in Baghdad, they grew up as Baghdadi Iraqi Jews, who spoke Arabic among themselves and their Christian and Muslim neighbours, friends and colleagues. It wasn't so much a Jewish/Arab division as Muslim/Jewish/Christian. My mother's family on the other hand, spoke and continue to speak a dialect of Aramaic, as well as Kurdish when communicating with Kurds or other Jews in North Iraq who didn't speak Aramaic. I think its very important to discuss these issues of representation(or the lack thereof) in Israel and the diaspora Jewish communities. What are we? Arab Jews? Mizrahim? or Mizrachim? or MizraKHim? Sephardim? Oriental Jews? I think this reflects a serious problem within our socio-politico-cultural-historical reality. --Ben Zakai 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ignorance

"Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizrahi", which dates from the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, Arab Jews (יהודים ערבים) was a commonly used designation for those Mizrahim originating in Arab lands" who wrote this (and other) nonsense? the one who will translate the hebrew article will do the en.wiki a big favor.

As an Iranian Jew - I find all the blather from Al-Andalus quite silly. Please get a job and stop spreading leftist nonsense under the cover of academic authenticity and ethnic group rights. Your posts read like the rant of a Western academic and not the thoughts or concerns of a Jewish writer.

- Ferredoun

You've hit on the core of the problem with this and several articles he chooses to "contribute" to. I don't think, however, that he was saying that Iran is an "arab land". Also, I don't think you'll find Western academic leftists spouting this kind of crap. It's just crap. It's not leftist or academic or Western. It's just crap. Tomer 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And as Jew from Iran you should also know that the term "Arab Jew" does not apply to you. A Jew from Iraq, has every right to identify or denominate himself as an "Arab Jew" as you a Jew from Iran has the right to denominate yourself a "Persian Jew".

That in your mind you view my position not to be the "thoughts or concerns of a Jewish writer" only reflects your own ignorace. Know you not of to the pluraliy of Jews and Judaism? Englighten me then; What then are the immutable parameters for the thoughts and concerns of a Jew be validly Jewish (and not the rants of a leftist western academic)? Perhaps the parameters of the Zionists? I'm sorry, Zionism is the last thing to validate my worth as a Jew, or the validity of my thoughts and concerns as a Jew? G-d forbid the day in which that might become our people's truth. Al-Andalus 10:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, as a first step to helping contribute to the future of the Jewish people, I recommend converting to Judaism or if, as you claim, you really are Jewish by ancestry, that you make tshuva. Tomer 08:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Contribute to the future of the Jewish people, you say? Zionism is not the way. It is what will utimately disrtoy us. Don't delude yourselves. We have had continuity for over two thousand years of Diaspora, whereever in the world; Germany, Poland, Ethiopia, Iran, Tunisia, India. Over two thousand years. Zionism will see our ultimate demise, and not brought upon us by outsiders, but by those within. As for Tshuva, the irony in the day when a Zionist demanded someone else to make Tshuva! In another 50 years you (plural) will see the damage you have done to us as a people, then YOU will make Tshuva on your own accord. But by then the damage inflicted will have been done, iit will have been too late. Zionism is but another golden calf, and Zionists but another corrupted mob unready to await for Moses to descend from Mount Sinai. Al-Andalus 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Since the core of Zionism is irreligious or antireligious socialism, I would agree with you, that "Zionism is not the way" to contribute to the future of the Jewish people. That said, I rather doubt that Zionism is going to be the undoing of the Jewish people. That is brought about by assimilation and by Jews becoming apostates by following false prophets. So, I'm somewhat mystified. As I am the only one who has pointed out to you that the best way you can contribute to the future of the Jewish people is by converting to Judaism (tshuva is impossible for non-Jews), I'm seeing two problems with your response here. First, I'm not a Zionist. Second, I'm not more than one person . The rest of your pontifications about Zionism and Zionists, therefore, are completely irrelevant as a response to anything I said...and nothing you said has anything even remotely to do with this discussion, nor with the article, which is what this page is here for. On an unrelated note, Al-Andalus, it is when you type things like "It is what will utimately disrtoy us", "the irony in the day", and the like, that gives rise to the common perception that English is not only not your native language, but that you don't speak it very well at all. Tomer 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Convert to Judaism? I hardly think one can be made a Jew twice. By birth and then conversion? Perhaps for the Zionists who abandoned Judaism for Zionism, should be made to convert. Al-Andalus 12:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

This seems to have moved from a discussion of the term/cultural group (self-identified or not) to a discussion that might better be carried out on different talk pages - perhaps Talk:Zionism, Talk:Jew, et al. Discussion of an editor's facility with English, if it happens at all, should be carefully limited to whether or not that affects readers' comprehension of the article. Most of the people who've contributed to this talk page seem to be frequent contributors to WP; none of this should be new to anyone. Epimetreus 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

As a simple example, introduction of an "Arab Jews" section with the claim that the term "has been largely eradicated or supressed as an ethnic identity by consecutive Ashkenazicentric Israeli administrations" is blatant POV. There is no evidence that anything you have entered is NPOV, or cited from encyclopedic sources, and much to indicate the exact opposite. Please suggest changes here first. Jayjg 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arab Jews, Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews

Andalus states that Arab Jew describes himself well, as do some Israelis. We all agree that the concept never really took off in Israel. Many pull and push factors may be named to explain why it did not take off or may had taken off under different circumstances. Andalus supports in this discussion a critical theoretic approach (for example neo-Marxism), where the reason why the concept does not work has to do with a class struggle in a (near) horizontally ethnically-stratified Israeli society. To keep the discussion POV, I would just list the history of the concept and name the factors that made it more and less likely to be used. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Before I will change anything I would appreciate some reactions. I would also like to know what happened to our welcome intention to undo the mutual exclusiveness of the concepts Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews. gidonb 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Are Morroccan jews considered Sefardim or Mizrahi--Burgas00 13:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

fe! what a mess! Tomer 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when was IRAN AN ARAB COUNTRY

Iran is located in Southwest Asia (MIDDLE EAST). Majority of countries their are Arabs.BUT IRAN IS NOT. SO THE ISRAELI PRESIDENT AND DEFENCE MINISTER OF ISRAEL ARE FROM IRAN. most of Iran is Persian not Arab.

KingKongIran 00:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews are not just from Arab countries. Jayjg 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg you are right. But The persident of Israel is known as a Persian Jew. Same with the Israeli defence minster. 70.68.185.170 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus again

Al-Andalus has again returned to the article, attempting to insert various POV and ungrammatical statements, without even bothering to use edit comments, much less introduce them on the Talk: page first. His most recent attempt included this modified paragraph:

...its use by the Mizrahim themselves varied; whether used as a simple discriptor of origin or as a label of ethnic identity. Most Iraqi Jews, for example, "viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality" to other Arab Iraqis (Muslim or Christian.) Both in Israel and the diaspora, the term is rarely used today, and is discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government. There is a minority among the Mizrahim who promote reintroducing the designation Arab Jews over "Mizrahi", however,...

The first sentence is ungrammatical and speculative. The second sentence does not refer to usage of the term "Arab Jews" at all, but rather quotes (and then interprets) a paper by a sociologist who claimed that in the 1920s Iraqi Jews saw themselves as "Arabs of the Jewish faith". The third sentence introduces an uncited POV claim, that the term is "discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government". The fourth sentence is ungrammatical. Jayjg 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this just a bit overboard? Just a comment from an outsider, but this is seeming kind of personal. EK 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)EK

Interesting that you make your first comment on Misplaced Pages on an alleged personal nature of a discussion by and about persons you did not know before?! I hope that you find many areas for constructive contributions here at Misplaced Pages. gidonb 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)