Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions

jewish ethnic groups

i've long been hearing that there are over 30 jewish ethnic groups. i'm finally adding my signature. and yes, the whole definition of "ethnic group", especially in this context, could be argued and argued about. Gringo300 06:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How can a religious group such as the Jews be called an ethnic group? You can choose wether or not you believe in Jewish beliefs, but you cannot do this with a race.\

"Race" is a pretty discredited notion. As to how Jews can be both a religion and an ethnic group, the answer is basically that the word "Jew" can mean either. Whereas (to choose another case where ethnicity and religion correlate strongly) we have a different word to refer to a "Romanian Orthodox" person and a "Romanian" person, in the case of the Jews, we don't have such a distinction: a "Jew" or "Jewish person" can equally easily mean religion or ethnicity. This is partly because Halakhic law considers it impossible to convert away from being a Jew (one may be an unbeliever or an apostate, but one is still, by Halakha, a Jew) and dictates that being a Jew is hereditary in the female line, and partly because (for at least the last two millennia) Jews don't seek converts: in fact, conversion is a deliberately difficult process. Also, once one converts to the religion, one is considered to have become part of the ethnic group. (Similar institutions exist in several other ethnicities, including many of the native peoples of the Americas, but I'm unaware of any other largely European ethnic group that has a notion of being formally adopted into the ethnic group.) So, at least until the Enlightenment and the Emancipation of the Jews of Europe, the ethnicity and the religion were more or less interchangeable. That is less true today—mainly because there are many secular (ethnic) Jews—but, linguistically, to distinguish the two, we have to use circumlocutions like "ethnic Jew" vs. "believer in Judaism"; normally, we just call either a "Jew" or "Jewish". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

this should be "sub-ethnic"

Modern science consider all Jews as a single ethnic group, with division to various sub-ethnic groups. This article should be renamed to "Jewish sub-ethnic groups"

Can you explain exactly which "Modern science" defined Jews as "a single ethnic group, with division to various sub-ethnic groups?" Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)

You yourself stated that "Jews are ethnic group, not a merely followers of religion". So what makes Jews an ethnic group? Common place of orign, ancestry and religion, common literature language, common substratum and/or loan-words in the everyday langauge. Then what about diversity among Jews? Even inside one family 2 cousens can look very differently, so what do you want from people divided for 2000 years? It's a common mistake to call different Jewish sub-ethnic groups - "ethnic groups". The majority anthropologists will use word "sub-ethnic". Especially today when Jews restored their own state. DNA research proves that majority of Jewish sub-ethnic groups have common ancestry. You may say common ancestry does not make them a single ethnic group. OK, does common language make them single group? Does common land make them single group? Maybe common religion? Do they marry exclusively inside their sub-ethnic divisions? Why secular Jew from Poland will marry Jewess from Tunisia, but will not marry Polish or Arab woman? I putting emphasis on "secular", since it has nothing to do with common religion, but with common ethnicity. To summarize the traditional Jews (i.e. not exotic ones, like Bnei-Menashe or Beta-Israel) have much more in common, than different.

Can you provide evidence that "The majority anthropologists will use word "sub-ethnic"." please? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)

I just know, when I read a solid research paper or article they use word "sub-ethnic". When I read some ignorant wen site or a dating site they use word "Ethnic". When you say "ethnic Jewish groups" it's sound like "ethnic Albanians in Kosovo". When you say "Jewish ethnic groups" this means different ethnicities with common Jewish religion. When you say "Jewish sub-ethnic groups" this means subdivisions within single Jewish ethnicity. I think you and majority of researchers meaning the later variant.

Can you reference some "solid research paper or article" which uses the term in relation to Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/Tolts_Article1.pdf

From what I can see the article uses the term exactly once, in a table, to refer to groups which might well be considered sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews. Would it be possible to find some sources which refer to Ashkenazism and Sepharadim as "sub-ethnic groups"? Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyways. That's not a solid research paper or article, it's an examination of FSU census data. Just because the FSU census bureau makes up a word doesn't give it any legitimacy. This is just another case of non-Jews trying to have a say in who is and who is not a Jew. Tomer ^TALK June 30, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Tomer, FSU census doesn't use word sub-ethnic, it's Mark Tolts one who use it. FSU census do not interpret this data, everybody is willing to use whatever ethnicity he likes. Some people even called themselves elfes, Read the footnotes on page #37. This reserach was done by the Division of Jewish Demography and Statistics, the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This is much higher authority for me than anonymous Wikipedia authors. There are no entries for European Jews in the table, since Russian authorities long time were familiar only with them. But many non-European Jews also identify themselves simply as Jews. It's not as you said "sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews", as other sub-ethnic groups of Jews are specified like Khazars, Krymchaks, Karaites and Sabbatarians. Or do you consider Sabbatarians and Khazars as "sub-ethnic" divisions of Mizrahi Jews???

The absence of Ashkenazim is becuase Jews in FSU are predominantly Ashkenazim, not for any other reason.

From what I can see the article uses the term exactly once, in a table, to refer to groups which might well be considered sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews. Would it be possible to find some sources which refer to Ashkenazism and Sepharadim as "sub-ethnic groups"? Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 18:54 (UTC)

If I may, I understand this to be an issue of what is meant by "ethnic". Typically the word refers to groups who, by constituting a distinct ethnicity, are said to be separate and, particularly, to have separate origins for all values of "separate" that are meaningful to the discussion. (For instance, "ethnicity is a social construction that indicates identification with a particular group which is often descended from common ancestors": http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html -- although I recognize that it is more multidimensional than that: http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/ethnicity.htm).

It is the tradition of many Jewish communities, on the other hand, that said communities constitute a collective group with collective origins. (Apparently genetic testing -- as a trace of historic migration patterns and without attributing any particular social charateristic, obviously -- bears this out, but I know nothing of such things.)

If so, then by asserting that Jews are divided into "ethnic groups" one is by definition asserting that the tradition whereby certain Jewish communities have common origins, is in fact false. To the extent that the assertion of "Jewish ethnic groups" is felt to imply the falsity of this tradition, I can understand the discomfort with it -- it is probably not NPOV unless one conclusively proves that certain Jewish communities (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Baghdadi) classified as belonging to different "ethnic divisions" in fact have no common origins. Unless that can indeed be proven, and I obviously believe that there is a good case for the opposite being true, I guess I'd support the idea of "Jewish communities" instead of "Jewish ethnic groups". Or perhaps "Jewish sub-ethnic", although I agree that the term is a bit funny sounding and may not be separate in the literature. --AnotherBDA 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we instead use the term Jewish Subgroup? terms such as jewish sect, or creed often refer to the divisions among philosophies.ThuranX 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews

there are no such a thing like "sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews", for one reason for exampple East Caucasian and Georgian Jews are very close neighbours, but genetically they very diffrenet, where "Mountain" Jews much closer to Ashkenazim than to Georgian Jews. So why do you inventing "sub-ethnic groups of the Mizrahi Jews". I never heard or or read such a thing. I can use your weapon: show me at least one reference, please!

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html Dror Rosengarten. "Y Chromosome Haplotypes Among Members of the Caucasus Jewish Communities." Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Ancient DNA and Associated Biomolecules, July 21-25, 2002. Abstract excerpt: "...buccal swab genomic DNA samples were collected from 51 unrelated males from the Mountain Jewish community and from 55 unrelated males from the Georgian Jewish community... Corresponding haplotype frequencies in other Jewish communities and among neighboring non-Jewish populations were derived from the literature. Based on a variety of genetic distance and admixture measures we found that majority of Kavkazi Jewish haplotypes were shared with other Jewish communities and were consistent with a Mediterranean origin. This result strengthens previous reports, which indicated a shared ancestral pool of genetic haplotypes for most contemporary Jewish communities. In the case of the Georgian Jewish samples, both Mediterranean and European haplotypes were found. This could indicate either a Mediterranean origin with a European genetic contribution or a European source with a Mediterranean contribution. Generally, Georgian Jews were found to be closer to European populations than to Mediterranean populations. Despite their geographic proximity, there was a significant genetic distance between the Mountain and Georgian Jewish communities, at least based on Y-haplotype analysis..."

Anyway I can settle on term "Jewish communities" instead of "Jewish ethnic groups"

Perhaps we should take up this discussion from a different perspective: the name of this article may be in need of examination. Since Jews are an ethnos it might be better to rename the article to reflect that; something perhaps, along the lines of עדות ליהודים. Yea? Nay? Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Hi there -- a long-belated yea from this new Wikipedia user, I guess, for the reasons set out a little bit above. --AnotherBDA 06:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Migrating" Jews

This business of the Ashkenazim migrating north from Italy and the Sfaradim migrating to Iberia is nonsense. While it's historically accurate to say that some of the Jews who became Ashkenazim migrated north out of Italy, and that some of the Jews who became Sfaradim migrated hither thither whither and whenceëver whithersoever, saying that these communities are a result of migrations is grossly inaccurate. Jewish communities are recorded in Iberia from before the Punic Wars. Jewish communities are recorded in northern France and in what is now western Germany from at least the 2nd century AD. Neither of these communities are anywhere, at least as far as I've been able to ascertain, recorded as having been "replaced" or even "overwhelmed" by later immigration by Jews from Italy [for the Ashkenazim] nor from anyelsewhence [for the Sfaradim]. I left the Jews migrating north from Italy in the history of the Ashkenazim, since Ashkenazic history isn't my forté, but the migration into Iberia has been reinserted into my rewrite. So, the question I have is, why was this language reinserted into my rewrite, rather than removing the purported great northward migration of Jews that supposedly led to the development of Ashknazuth? Tomer ^TALK 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, they all came from Israel, and got to southern Germany/Iberia somehow - your wording implied that they originated in those places. The communities became distinctive Jewish subgroups in those places, but they certainly didn't originate there. If you can think of a better wording that captures this, I'm all for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern genetics certainly indicates that at the very least half (matrilineal ancestry) of the Ashkenazi genome orgininates in Europe, not in Israel or the ancient Israelites. As for the paternal ancestry of the Ashkenazim, most is indeed Israelite, but with a small Central Asian admixture (presumably the Khazar element) and again some European. The Ashkenazim either originated both in Europe and the Middle East, or they originated in neither and are a people without origins. Does a mulatto originate in Africa or Europe, in both continents, or in neither?

'Well, they all came from Israel. Wrong my friend. The original Jews, the Ivri, ORIGINATED (and this time the word is absolutely correct) in the "other side" of the river Euphrates in Mesapotamia. Israel is the land promised by G-d to the Ivri, the destination, NOT the point of origin. 11:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Modern day research places Ur of the Chaldeans in Iraq. Abraham, his wife Sarah both came from modern day Iraq. They were MIDDLE EASTERN not EUROPEAN. They had dark features - MIDDLE EASTERN APPEARANCE. There has however, been much assimulation in the last 2/3,000 years by all Jews, particularly if they are no longer MIDDLE EASTERN in features.

However, with all the assimulations and exiles of JEWS, they should now be a MULTINATIONAL ETHNIC GROUP. Abraham should now be the FATHERS of MANY NATIONS spread around the four corners of the earth. GENETIC TESTING WILL SOON BEAR THIS OUT!!

As a Black Jamaican Jew, I was surprised to find out that Christopher Colombus was a MARRANO (forced convert to Christianity), and owned the whole land of Jamaica in 1508. His expedition to the Caribbean (INDIES), was ESCAPE FROM THE SPANISH INQUISITION, along with other fugitives and Marranos, who were the early White settlers in the Caribbean Islands, long before the British and the Black African slaves arrived. Cuba was founded in 1492, same year JEWS were expelled from SPAIN. He founded JAMAICA in 1494. There were 8 synagogues in JAMAICA at one time. Some were destroyed by Earthquakes in the 1600's. Now there is only one left - Both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have almagamated together in the Synagogue in KINGSTON JAMAICA.

The Jewish history in the Caribbean is a sensitive one. Which is why many Jews today, are either not aware of it or rather forget it! The Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian Jews were the "brains" behind the sugar plantation industry. A skill they brought with them to the Caribbean Islands. Unfortunately, it involved Black African slave labour - FREE HARD LABOUR.

Black African slaves were unable to marry or bond with their children. However, if Black African slaves assimulated with their White Slave Master, their offspring could be made free. A Colour coded registry system was installed with spanish/portuguese terminology: SAMBO three black parent/grandparents one white grandparent MULATTO one white parent and one black parent QUADROONthree white parents/grandparents one black grandparent amongst other categories - Check COLONIAL RECORDS FOR FURTHER STUDY.--jbrooks--5th Jan 2006213.48.145.13 08:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

the egyptian jews are descendendants of moses: you got to be kidding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.170.79.140 (talk • contribs) 26 Jan 2006.

I've never heard anyone claim that. Was it in the article at some point? - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate ethnic groups?

The caption of this article is ignorant, written either by non-Jews, assimilated Jews or plain anti-Semites. It's caption against common knowledge, Jewish beliefs and DNA research, that all Jews are single ethnic group. This article should be corrected to express NVP - Neutral Point of View. Currently it shows point of view of ignorant racists.

The content must be VERIFIABLE. Where is the reference, which proves, that Jews are separate ethnic groups?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.64.142.49 (talk • contribs) 11 Feb 2006.

I generally agree with this article, though I'm sure it could be improved. And I don't believe that makes me an "ignorant racist".

There really is no such thing as "proving" that two groups are, or are not, separate ethnic groups. Ethnicity is a complex of ancestry, language, religion, culture, and customs and there is no consensus about where the lines are drawn. Certainly these differences between groups of Jews are real; there is no ideal word to refer to them (the only other candidate I can readily think of, "Jewries", seems archaic), and ethnicity seems as good as any; Wikipedia tends to use the concept of ethnicity broadly and flexibly, both here and elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Ethnic sub-groups

I think that either a separate section, or additions to each section needing it, should address the objections of the Chassidim to the Kai feng and the iglesia israelita to considering them to be jewish in any form. I've been involved in afar too many bigoted conversations with Lubavitchers who say 'They can't prove it, they're liars, they don't have the DNA, they cannot prove direct matrilineal descent," and so on and on... I think that given the growth in both the identitfication of these and others, like the Lemba, and the conservative (religio-political designation, not subgroup of belief)Jewish response from Israel when such people seek refuge and asylum, I think this should be addressed here, or if appearing elsewhere in Wiki, the linked there.ThuranX 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly in Who is a Jew?. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

that works, thank you. ThuranX 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thuranx--Just a comment/query about your use of the "Chasidim"'s objection to calling the Lemba or Kaifeng Jews...this is not just an objection raised by "the chassidim", or Lubavitchers, (who are just one group of Hassidic jews) but rather no Orthodox Jew (i.e., a Jew who adheres to halakha) can accept the Lemba or the Kaifeng Jewish descendants in toto as Jews. An Orthodox Jew can accept that the Lemba or the Kaifeng Jewish descendants can accept them as descendants, without calling them "liars" but that does not make them "Jews" by halakhic criteria no matter how much Jewish ancestry they have. A good friend of mine has three Jewish grandparents and always considered himself Jewish, his mother's mother (his maternal grandmother) however, was not Jewish, therefore according to halakha, no Orthodox Jew regarded him as a Jew. Nobody had any problem regarding him as someone who was mostly descended from Jews. He eventually converted to and accepted Orthodox Judaism and thereafter he was a Jew in Orthodox eyes also. It is not a matter of bigotry, as you suggest, that Orthodox Jews don't and can't accept the Lemba or Kaifeng descendants as bona fide Jews--there is no problem acknowledging their Jewish ancestry, but according to Jewish law as understood by Orthodox Jews, they are not Jews, just descendants of Jews. There has recently been publicized a case of a Chinese Jewish family descended from the Kaifeng Jews that converted to Judaism and returned to the religion of their Jewish ancestors, and Orthodeox Jews , chasidim and Lubavitchers would have no problem regarding that family as Jews, as they have undertaken to accept the yoke of the Law. But the mass of the Kaifeng Jews have not. ShmorgelBorgel 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Huge Mistake In Article

Sepharadim are, as the article states, descendants of Jews inhabiting Portugal and Spain. But did they go as far as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.? The proper term for the latter communities are Mizrahi (meaning Easterner in Hebrew). I believe, but am not certain, that the North African communties were at one point a mix of Mizrahi Jews and Spanish Jews (who had left centuries ago). The Spanish Jews were said to have looked down upon the Moroccan ones. It is probably homogenous now though.

The Sephardim (Spanish Jews) did look down on the Berber Jews ("ture" Moroccan Jews). Today, though, most Moroccan Jews or their descentants in Israel could be considered a mixed population descended from both Sephardi Jews and Berber Jews. There are very few, and I mean very few, culturally affiliated Berber Jews left. Most were eventually absorbed into the Morrocan Sephardi community after taboos and biases gave way, or they simply assimilated and started identifying as Sephardim even if they didn't descend from them. This latter scenario would have eventually led to their assimilated Sephardi-identifying descendents actually marrying true Sephardim anyways.

The Jewish communities of the Levant are also a mix because Sephardim did reach as far as Lebanon and Syria after the expulsion of 1492.

The Jews of the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq are more likely not to have any Sephardi ancestry, since very few Sephardi made their way there, and the Jews there have always been "oriental". This is expecially true for Teimanim (Yemenite Jews). Likewise with Parsim (Iranian Jews). Al-Andalus 04:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly some Spanish-descended families in Syria, arriving at the time of the expulsion from Spain, with names like Laniado, Toledano and so on, though at the beginning they had separate synagogues and it took some time for them to be accepted by the native community. (It is said that one can tell a Spanish-descended Syrian by the fact that they light an extra candle at Hanukah, apparently in gratitude for their acceptance.) More recently some Livornese and other Jews settled there for trading reasons, but kept their nationality in order to retain their privileges under the capitulation treaties instead of being treated as "dhimmis": these were known as "Francos" or "Signorim" and considered socially superior to the rest. The groups generally maintained a common Chief Rabbinate, and all followed the Sephardic ritual, and therefore considered themselves as "Sephardim" in the broader sense of "Jews of the Spanish rite".

I believe the same pattern obtained in most North African countries. In Morocco the division was geographical, as there was a Spanish-speaking coastal strip including cities such as Tetuan where the Jewish community was known as "Gerush Castilia" and kept themselves quite separate from both the Arab and the Berber Jews of the interior. Each group had its stereotypes about the other, such as that the Spanish speakers were snobbish and mean, and that the Arabic speakers used too much grease in their food. There was also some distinction between the Arab Jews of old cities such as Fez and the Berber Jews of remote country villages. Today's community is mostly French-speaking and lives in Casablanca. Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Berber Jews

I was gonna add Berber Jews to the list, but I stumbled on whether to put them in the "Africa" list or the "Middle East and Central Asia". I personally feel more comfortable placing them in the latter category, but the title should then be changed to "North Africa, Middle East, and Central Asia". Any thoughts? Al-Andalus 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the last ("North Africa, Middle East, and Central Asia") is the best way to handle this, but it's so hard drawing these arbitrary lines: after all, an awful lot of Sephardi could also be called "Jews of North Africa", far outnumbering the Berber Jews even at their peak. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing remark about Ashkenazim in Israel

"…over time in Israel, all Jews from Europe came to be called "Ashkenazi" in Israel, whether or not they had any connection with Germany…" I'm having a hard time working out what words are operative here. Does this mean that a British Jew of clearly Sephardic background would be known in Israel as an Ashkenazi? How about a re-converted converso from Spain or Portugal? Or does this just mean, just as in the U.S. or Argentina, that Ashkenazi long since lost its specific connection to Germany, and that, for example, a Lithuanian or Hungarian Jew of centuries-earlier German Jewish background would normally be called Ashkenazaic, not something more specific? - Jmabel | Talk 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a bit of both. That is, there are two separate points.
1. Historically, Russian/Polish/Hungarian/Ukrainian etc. etc. Jews were called "Ashkenazim", whether or not they had German ancestors, because they inherited German Jewish traditions (like the liturgy, and the use of Yiddish).
2. In Israel today, a Sephardi from Western Europe such as a "Spanish and Portuguese" Jew from England would not be called Ashkenazi, but would probably fit socially into "Ashkenazi" (Westernised educated) circles better than into those of Jews directly from Morocco and other Arab countries, and would not be stigmatized as belonging to a Sephardic underclass. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am dubious on both points.

1. While "Ashkenazi" derives from the biblical word for German, I do not think that we talk of East European Jewry as having inherited "German" Jewish traditions, especially where the Eastern Ashkenazi traditions differed specifically from those of German Ashkenaz. Rather, East European Jewry's traditions are themselves Ashkenazi, because that is who Ashkenazim were. Similarly, the diversity within the Ashkenazi world is quite well recognized and acknowledged. A Litvak or a Romanian Jew or a Hungarian Jew would in a great many circumstances be identified as such and identify with a community as such. Indeed, so it takes place, all over the world.

2. I'm not sure what is meant. This business of a "Sephardic underclass", from which historically European Sephardim then escape, seems overbroad to me. On one hand, the various eastern Edot, for instance Iraqi, Moroccan, Yemenite, etc. were certainly well identified, similar to the Litvaks, Galizianers, etc. above; it may not be meaningful in all cases to lump all of these communities together, and I suspect that this is one of those cases.

On the other hand, the significant assimilation of European Sephardim into the larger European and North American populations -- perhaps more than into the Ashkenazic underclass which then existed in Sephardic-majority European metropoles, though it is hard to know -- probably means that this community was not really a major factor, so the question would apply. Certainly, however, the highly educated and cultured classes of non-Ashkenazic background who had significant "Westernised educated" backgrounds (as Sir Myles na Gopaleen puts it) in Europe itself or in the networks of European schools such as the Alliance israélite, were not identified as Ashkenazim.

I would therefore agree with Jmabel. It's probably not true that all Jews from Europe in Israel have come to be known as Ashkenazim, and it's certainly not true that most Jews from Europe in Israel have come to be known as "simply" Ashkenazim (with regard to edah, that is).AnotherBDA 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 is historical. In medieval Hebrew "Ashkenaz" certainly meant simply "Germany". Authorities in Poland and other countries from the sixteenth century onwards (e.g. Solomon Luria) were certainly aware of the differences between their communities and the contemporary German community, but they regarded the medieval German community (and, more remotely, the Jews of eleventh and twelfth century France) as their ancestors. Thus in calling themselves "Ashkenazim" they meant that they followed German traditions, albeit a different form from those used in Germany (just as Americans speak English, but a different form from that used in England.)

Point 2 was meant to describe a certain Israeli prejudice, rather than to give a genuine classification of the communities. Of course Sephardi and Mizrahi groups are very heterogenous indeed, and are found at all points on the social spectrum: the point is simply that middle-class Israeli Ashkenazim might find it easier to accept some groups than others as being "nice, like us". I too was startled by the statement that "all Jews from Europe have come to be known as Ashkenazim", and was simply speculating on what might be meant. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How many Ashkenazi?

A recent anonymous edit reduced the percentage of present-day Jews who are Ashkenazi from 85% down to 65%. None of the numbers have been cited. Does someone have something citable? - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The figure 85% is calculated after taking into account 6,400,000 Jews in USA. Everyone knows there are less than 5,200,000 Jews in USA. The real percentage will be 75%-80% and decreasing. (B'coz 40% of all Jews lives in Israel and only 47% of them are Ashkenazim) Axxn 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Khazars

An anon recently added (and I've cut) the passage italicized here: "The probability is that many Ashkenazi Jews have some Khazar ancestry, but that the proportion involved in most cases is small and most people of purly one ethnic group will find ancestry of other ethnic groupes who assimilated into the community. Aside for the misspellings (which would be trivial to fix) the problem with this is that it can be said of absolutely every ethnic group in the world and has little or nothing to do with the topic of the paragraph.

I do think that the topic of Jewish intermarriage with Gentiles belongs somewhere in this article. I don't think it belongs in a context specific to the Khazars. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashkenazim are converts

Quite a few people believe the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars who converted in the 9th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.100.188.225 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Quite a few people believe that Elvis is alive. - Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The photo of a "mixed" Sephardi and Ashkenazi couple doesn't illustrate anything - they both look equally Sephardi. Also, I wonder if they know they are starring in this article.--Gilabrand 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really..... The Ashkenazi guy is a gingerhead which is typical of Eastern Ashkenazim. (Russia, Poland. etc). Axxn 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

help

I'd appreciate it if regular contributors to this article helped me out here. KarenAER provides three responses to three comments of mine. You need concern yourselves only with the third. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

sephardim

Jewish presence in Spain dates to the Phoenician era, about 800 BC. many Portuguese Jews went to the Netherlands and other northern European countries- see Amsterdam Esnoga. 84.90.17.202 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian jews

And the ethnic slavs russian jews, are ashkenazim? The page doesn't explain about the russian jews, but the turkic jews. --Enkiduk 05:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no "Russian Jews". Jews in Russia are Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim immigrated from Poland and Germany. There are some Sephardim also... mostly speaking Bukharic (Related to Persian), Georgian and Daghestani Tat. Axxn 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lost tribes of Israel

This article mentions "Jews already present in Iberian peninsula." Does this mean that the Lost tribes of Israel are in the Iberian Peninsula, or is this another group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.198.154 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening a can of ethnic worms

Maybe the term "ethnic division" etc for Ashkenazim, Sephardim etc makes sense to people from the States (or does it?) but considering the way the term "ethnic" is used in say South Africa where I am from, it makes no sense at all, here ethnic group would mean things like being a Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaner, Portuguese. Ashkenazi and Sephardi are examples of what is called Minhag in Judaism and there is already a decent article on it in wikipedia that correctly translates it as "custom" not "ethnic division". I say this confused article should be merged into the Minhag article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard in article

Why is it that all the jews under the sub-saharan africa heading are portrayed with suspicion whereas all other jews are presented as factually bona fide jews?