Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Insulting sentence about Indian Jews

"As a result of intermarriage with natives of India, some Jews of India resemble Indians and have Indian characteristics such as dark skin, etc." << is that really acceptable, Why does Dark skin imply intermarriage? Moroccan Jews range from White to Brown and no one doubts them, Most Ashkenazim are European looking yet genetics prooves they are of Middle Eastern origin, so why single out indians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All Jews went through intermarriage, that's why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.4.117 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How is that insulting? It is a simple fact. Some Russians look Chinese and vice versa - the list is endless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjharvey (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Moroccans are SEPHARDIC

the vast majority of North African Jews are SEPHARDIC(even if their primary language is NOW French,Arabic & Hebrew), decending from Iberian Jews, in fact in terms of Hazzanut and Nusah tefilah they are a branch Of Western Sephardi,along with Spanish-Portuguese Jews of Holland,England,Germany etc this is in contrast with Ladino Speaking Jews of South East Europe and the Levant who have Hazzanut and Traditions related to Iraqi,Syrian & Egyptian Mizrahim

It should also be noted that the primary language of Moroccan Jews was formarly Haketiya a dialect of Ladino,which was suplanted by French for various historical reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree on that. Most Moroccan Jews are autochtonous, but they were culturally assimillated into the more prosperous and culturally advanced Sephardic community.

Jewish ethnic groups

Jewish ethnic groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringo300 (talk • contribs) (06:39, 13 October 2005)

I've long been hearing that there are over 30 Jewish ethnic groups.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.159.94 (talk • contribs) (05:29, 1 February 2005)

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.\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.77.85 (talk • contribs) (23:00, 15 March 2006)

"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)

As for the concept of race, it's widely claimed that not all Jews are Semitic. That definitely complicates matters. If you define a Jew as "a follower of Judaism", the problem is that it is debated by people who self-identify as Jews what is and isn't "true" Judaism. Gringo300 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.20.67 (talk • contribs) (21:02, 29 June 2005)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.18.35 (talk • contribs) (22:42, 29 June 2005 )

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.18.35 (talk • contribs) (19:07, 29 June 2005)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.18.35 (talk • contribs) (19:31, 29 June 2005)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.16.166 (talk • contribs) (18:49, 30 June 2005)

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://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)

Someone asked for an anthropologist's view. I am an anthropologist at the University of Arizona, and as such I can speak for the 4-field North American tradition.

Anthropology accepts that religion and ethnicity are not entirely separable things, and that there are groups like Jews where the two are hard to disentangle. Anthropology also views ethnicity as a local phenomenon, not some sort of international taxonomic scheme.

Some, not all, anthropologists use the word "sub-ethnic" in order to index a group's historical connection to a pan-regional group. This practice is out of line with the traditions of Boas and Barth on whom contemporary understandings of ethnicity are founded. Within this tradition, ethnicity is maintained locally by different groups distinguishing themselves from other groups they interact with. There is no "single Jewish ethnicity" from an observer's (etic) perspective, but we can recognize and respect the ideological (emic) perspective of the tradition ThuranX mentions. Both perspectives are important in anthropology, but it is extremely important to distinguish between them.

Each Jewish ethnic group has its own sense of shared or different history with Jews as a whole, and with their local surroundings. Each has its own cultural commonalities and differences, both with Jews as a whole and with the local groups they distinguish themselves from. Socioculturally, it makes sense to speak of many Jewish ethnic groups which share certain historical, ideological and (in the age of the state of Israel) geopolitical ties.

Regardless of the particular politics of the terminology, "sub-ethnicity" creates a unified picture of world Jews which erases the significant sociocultural differences between particular ethnic groups. This may help portray Israel as having more consensus or less discrimination than it really has; or it may help portray world Jews as somehow more united than they are. It undercuts the claims of particular ethnic groups to having separateness that can or should be preserved, but on the other hand it can serve a humanitarian purpose, as in using "sub-ethnic" to describe Beta Israel and argue for and end to questioning its Jewishness. This is not an innocent terminological debate, and it should not be masked under the guise of "scientific objectivity".

Use of the term "Jewish ethnic groups", in short, is uncontroversial in anthropology, while use of the term "sub-ethnic groups" is debated and must rely on ideologies, rather than observable facts, about what constitutes an ethnic group. balshan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Anyway I can settle on term "Jewish communities" instead of "Jewish ethnic groups" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.16.221 (talk • contribs) (21:29, 30 June 2005)

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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Andalus (talk • contribs) (11:13, 10 November 2005 )

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.142.49 (talk • contribs) (18:21, 11 February 2006)

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)

Yawn. So chinese jews (who look like their other chinese neighbours) and american jews (many who exactly look like wasps) never divided? SURE!

So, Ashley Tisdale and Michael Bay look exactly like these people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jews_of_Kai-Fung-Foo,_China.jpg

Yeah, right... It would be a lot more racist to classify jews as just one big "ethnic group" who never divided and never mixed. That's the stuff real anti-semites and racists proclaim.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashernm (talk • contribs) (01:19, 25 May 2006)

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)

Ashkenazim are not convert but decendents of Jews from the land of Israe. As for those who believe that Elvis is alive-why should their opinion will be mention in an article that is not specificly addressing to them?--Gilisa (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd better check with Schlomo Zand! The entire discussion of the subject in this article is unscholarly and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (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)

But if - as is stated elsewhere in this article - all Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites with little contribution from other populations, why do they look different at all? An example of the problems created by the untenable idea pushed by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (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)

Well, those ARE known as Russian Jews, sorry.

And by the way, there were indeed groups of Russians with no jewish background who converted to Judaism. Like the Subbotniki

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? Either all jews have to provide irrefutable historical evidence they are jews or a claim is enough. It is not fair or reasonable to simply say a certain group of jews from a certain geographical area are all liars. IMO it seems that sub-saharan africa was made as a group of its own simply to cast doubt on the claims of black jews. Its funny that only the white jews in south africa are actaully portrayed as true jew yet they all claim to be jews none of them have historical proof, there really is no solid way to prove something like that. Different branches of Judaism use do different things. Heck I know Orthodoz jews who claim they are the only jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.27.30 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Orthodox claim that they are the only Jews comes from a sense of religious purity rather than a genetic one. A convert who stays true to the Torah, follows the Kashrut etc... and lives strictly to Orthodox Jewish law is considered a "true Jew" moreso than a Liberal or Conservative or Reform Jew who was born into a Jewish family. This is purely a religious designation and not one of heritage (neither genetic nor cultural).

Frater SG (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why use a Hasid to illustrate the Ashkenazim?

To illustrate the vast majority of the Jewish population today, this article shows a guy in a warm climate wearing a large fur hat. Why choose him as an example of the Ashkenazim? It only serves to highlight the stereotyping that a few people with bizarre customs provoke, to the dismay and annoyance of the rest of us. 86.144.203.81 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for this article to be renamed

The basic premise of this article is that Judaism is divided by ethnicity when in fact, Judaism is globally unifying. I think it should be renamed.

"Jewish ethnic diversity" would be far more appropriate.

The concept of ethnic division is abhorrent to Jews and if the article cannot be renamed then I think it should be deleted.

81.152.26.65 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem: You say Judaism is "globally unifying". Unifying from what? If it's already unified, then how can it be unifying still? That's illogical.

Fact is, there are ethnic divisions in Judaism. I am a Jew. My ethnic difference from Askhenazim is either ignored or discriminated regularly by other Jews, and by non-Jews who don't even understand that there are non-white Jews.

The concept of ethnic division is abhorrent to Jews who want to act as if there already were unity. There are many different histories and geographies of our people, and we have unity in some areas and difference in others. You have no right to claim that this truth is "abhorrent to Jews": you cannot speak for all Jews. balshan (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

balshan, What you are calling "division," 81.152.26.65 is calling "diversity." I think the phrase "globally unifying" as it is used by 26.65 is meant to convey the sense that there already exists unifying characteristics to Judaism.

It may not matter that you are a Jew, balshan, because an article first and foremost should be based on reliable sources that can be verified. That you may have been "ignored" or "discriminated" against is probably irrelevant unless you have a source for that.

I don't know that the title "Jewish ethnic divisions" is exactly "abhorrent," but I don't think it is great. I like 26.65's suggestion of "Jewish ethnic diversity." It is better than the present title. And it removes the slightly objectionable notion of "divisions." I think 26.65's objection is a valid one, though I would not characterize the present title or any implications it might carry as being "abhorrent." My problem with 26.65's suggested title of "Jewish ethnic diversity" is that it puts the opposite spin in the title — it makes the title too "sweet" and politically correct.

I would suggest "Jews by sub group." This sidesteps any questions relating to "ethnicity," at least in the title. The article can treat each group in as thorough detail as it likes.

Where verifiable sources make reference to "ethnicity" then certainly that language can be used. But the article should stick closely to reliable sources, especially as regards references to "ethnicity." That is not too much to ask as sources are the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

The all article is loaded with POV. I know it is decided that to term Israel prior to 1948 and after the Roman conquest as "Palestine" is somehow the most acceptable way. But I can't see how it evade POV as "Palestine" is the name was given to Israel by people who were, no doubt, conquers-that's what defined Rome and make it to be remember as the most powerful regime ever. And how does all of this is connected with the article? well, very simple-there is no such a thing as "Palestinian Jew" but an Israeli (i.e. eretz Isra'eli ארץ ישראלי meaning from hebrew: a jew from the land of Israel), and btw-this is also how they termed theirself for many generations. Much before Israel was termed "Palestine" it was called Israel and for a substantial period-not to mention that after the fall of Israel as the home of the Jewish people no other people populate it with success and no other state was established instead of this the Jews had there. More, for the Jews of black Africa-aside for those of Ethiopia (who convert toward Judaism 600 years ago in unknown way and still are not accepted as Jews by the entire Jewish world), no other of the mentioned in the article are considered to be Jewish by scholars or by the known Jewish communities (for example, the state of Israel does not acknowledge them as Jews as well as the rabbinical institutions) -not even the lamba whose paternal genetic heritage is slightly connected with Jewish ancestors, there are 40 million people claiming for being decedent from ancient Jewish communities, and they are not acknowledged as Jews-so it is very important to make the difference. I think it can enrich the knowledge of all of us if the historical and geneticall origins of each community will be mention in a line with it as well (e.g., Libyan Jews are descendents of Jews from Israel and local Berbers who converted Judaism, Ashkenazi Jews are mainly descendents of Jews from Israel and etc).--Gilisa (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this right! Almost all Jewish groups, not just the Ashkenazim, are mainly descended from Israelites (at least paternally). If anything, in regards to Ashkenazi maternal lineage, it has only been said that at the very most, a significant amount is possibly of Israelite ancestry. Even if this were the case, ie, not merely a "possibility" (the wording of the researchers themselves), then it would still stand at 40%, leaving another 60% of maternal founder lineage of local non-Jewish Europeans.

So don't go around asserting Ashkenazi "Israelite" superiority over Libiyan Jews because of their non-Jewish Berber admixture, or Yemenite Jews for their non-Jewish Yemenite and African admixture, the Bene Israel or Cochin Jews for their non-Jewish Indian admixture, or every other Jewish group for that matter which inevitable have admixture of one sort or another in whatever degree.

Do you really think the ancient Israelites actually resembled the Ashkenazim? Please! Last time I checked, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were neither from Germany, Poland nor Russia. Al-Andalus (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to break it to you "al-Andalus", but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have been wholly unfamiliar with Arabs. According to the Biblical record, Abraham was from "Aram Naharaim", which, sorry to tell you, does not correspond to an Arab region, as it is in Upper Mesopatamia, where Kurds far outnumber Arabs. Isaac his son and Jacob, spend their lives in either Aram Naharaim or Eretz Israel (Canaan), not in Arabia and would not have been familiar with any term like "Palestine", again, sorry to have to tell you. As a matter of fact, the original patriarchs of the Arabs were called Adnan and Qahtan, and the notion that these were somehow descended from Araham and Ishmael is, let's face it, a late tradition. Even in the Islamic hadiths, Mohammed is supposed to have warned against such attempts to draw links to Abraham: "The genealogists lie". Sorry to have to tell you. You may as well also know that the ultimate links of Ashkenazi Jews to ancient Judea are a well documented fact, since the Jews dispersed first to Rome, then to Cologne, the Alsace-Lorraine, and the Rhineland, and then during the Middle Ages eastward into eastern Europe. Believe it or not, this trip did not lead through central Asia and Khazars, a theory belied by the simple fact that all forms of Yiddish never strayed from their Middle High German linguistic roots, whether spoken in Antwerp or in the Ukraine. Sorry to have to tell you.

...Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.29.208 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Al-Andlus -from your nickname i understand that you are of north African Arab decent (probably)-my wife is of north African Jewish origin (i.e. she has, as my child, Berberic heritage as well). I feel like you understood me on the wrong way, my claming that Ashkenazim are of middle eastern origin making no judgment regarding what you wrongly referred as their "superiority", actually-there are sometimes Ashkenazi people who would like to believe that they have more European heritage than they actually do. Any way, the study regarding the Ashkenazi maternal founder lineage state that 40% of the Ashkenazi's mothers are of middle eastern origin, in fact- 4 women who leave the middle east ~1500 years ago have founded 40% of the Ashkenazi ppl. The rest 60% are attributed to another ~ 150 women whose origin the study didn't identify but the authors did write that it is most probable that the majority of these women is of middle eastern origin as there are no good evidence for massive non-Jewish European genetic contribution. Other studies put the Non Jewish-European genetic contribution about 5% to 8% or 12% -while the lower percent is now accepted as the more probable. This means that only one of the 16 average Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors (or 1/16 of his/her heritage) is from non Jewish European source. As converting toward Judaism was forbidden in Europe by the church since the 4 CE (much before the Ashkenazim communities were formed) this contribution is mostly attributed to the Khazars and indeed, it was found that probably all of this 5-12%(probably 5%) non-Jewish contribution can be attributed to Russians or to Ukrainians or to Anatolian Turks (it is unclear which of those people is the contributor) - it is true that in first glance, the appearance of many Ashkenazi Jews is not typically middle eastern-but you have to remember that they are mostly still don't have the appearance of an average European (even when having some European figures) and that any way, even when they do have-even a relatively slight contribution can change more than you expect. The ancestors of Ashkenazim leave the middle east before the people of the region were mixed with the Arabs so it is quite reasonable to assume that the inhabitants of the region looked different, to some extant, 1600 years ago-even if yet didn't look like Ashkenazim.--Gilisa (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilisa, if you want to know, what was apearance of Middle Eastern people before the Arabic conquest, look at Neo-Aramaic speaking people. Because of their Christian religion, they didn't mixed with Muslim Arabs and saved their language.

The Christian populations of Levant has little of Arab admixture. Syrian/Lebanese/Israeli Christian Arabs are what you looking for :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.254.81 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of Wikipedia as Vehicle of Racism

Maybe I'm too sensitive or too subjective, or even too single-minded, and please don't hesitate to say so if you think I am, but I feel that this article carries on where the Nazis left off. It examines a specific selection of people in fine detail, right down to their current reproductive rates, and it stinks of racism.

Please let it be known that the individuals (or the individual) who are the protagonists of this article represent no one other than themselves. 86.140.84.58 (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that you are not Jewish, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thats the Nazis killed Jews don't mean they should hide their identity because of it-the Germans are still very proud in their ethnic identity, why shouldn't the Jews be as well?! because what Germans have done or because what recist ppl are looking for?!--Gilisa (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting response, Gilisa. What would your response have been had you guessed that I'm a Jew? 86.155.197.118 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (aka 86.140.84.58)

I am from Germany, and trust me, most German aren't proud "in their ethnic identity". That's mostly a neonazi thing here (seriously). Officially jews are not even an ethnicity here, just a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.54 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please regard the content of what I wrote, it have no strong connections with your being or not being a Jew. And if you are a Jew-than I say that your allegations against this article are coming from a place that I truely can't understand. Thanks and have a nice day (+ a user name)--Gilisa (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To anonymous 86.140.84.58: Hi, Jewish anthropology is not bad or evil thing, but the real problem here is not that that subject may lapse into areas where the Nazis left off, but that because of its difficulty to pin-point things by nature it allows itself to become the victim of WP:NOR so that much of its contents need to be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If statements cannot be pinpointed within the guidelines of Wikipedia then they are not facts, they are assumptions, and they don't belong here. 86.133.162.188 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

People tend to seek a sense of identity through their genetics and/or heritage. Look at the mess in former Yugoslavia. It's no different. People need to know where they came from and who they are in the world. They tend to seek a sense of "home" and that sometimes requires defining what "home" means. Some theology speculates that the blood is somehow bound to the place of birth or that genetic links to the land are imprinted upon us when we have lived somewhere for many generations.

The hardest part of an article on "Jewish Divisions" or of any specific ethnic group comes down to a question of pure genetics vs culture, both of which tend to change over time through contact with others. True, some genetic markers must exist but without a baseline to work with they are also subject to question.

Judaism makes this even more difficult because there is often no distinction between the religious and genetic. Is your spirit Jewish or your body, or both? An Arab can be Muslim, Parsee, Christian, or any other faith that they encounter or who are prevelent in the lands of their parents without stopping being an Arab. The tendancy for a Jew, though, is to be less "Jewish" should they be spiritually something else. In the realm of trying to identify and explore the history, background and migration of Jews throughout history this makes it very difficult and, inevitably, impossible to please everyone involved either personally, academically or theologically.

Frater SG (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK...I think there is a LOT of paranoia here. I have run into this while trying to have a conversation with Jewish people. As a non-religous, non-jew, who grew up in rural New Hampshire, not knowing any Jews, I was shocked at the hostility towards me, for curiosity...actually suggesting that I had Nazi leanings! How insulting! I would Love to have a Jewish friend but I rarely run into them where I live now and if I try to know them it's always a problem, so I have given up. One thing is fact; Jews DO have a Genetic component, because of thousands of years of religous based inter-marriage and it is a fact that Jews need to have Genetic testing for Genetic problems before they have children. I have seen scientists on the History Channel showing that Jewish skulls in ancient Isreal have a different shape than Roman skulls... This is not Racism, it is Science! Why is is OK when a Jew says he or she 'LOOKS' Jewish, but if I say someone looks Jewish, then I'm a Nazi?! Pointing out an ethnic 'look' is not racism! I notice when someone 'looks' Ukranian or from the ajoining countries. That doesn't mean that everyone in this country looks the 'same' but there IS a prevalence of a 'LOOK'. What's wrong with that? No one is being persecuted! If anything Jews are more respected Today for their intelligence and endurance through the centuries. I admire Jews greatly and I am fascinated with their mixture of genetics, ethicity and religion. Is there something wrong with admiration? Some people are intensely interested in the Celts and Celtic culture, a lot of people in Ireland actually 'LOOK' Irish, No one interested in this group wants to put them in 'death camps', do they? NO! Interest is not Preudice! This is my experience and my viewpoint, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.187.153 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute of Factual Accuracy

Much of the factual accuracy of this article is disputed, as evidenced above. I suggest that it is deleted, or at least renamed and substantially revised. Verifiable Facts Only (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of these so-called "Jewish ethnic divisions" are arbitrary artificial modern constructions

For instance, whither "Palestinian Jews"? Most Jews who lived 150 years ago in the Ottoman villayets corresponding to the later western Mandate of Palestine boundaries would not have had the foggiest idea what "Palestine" is, let alone that they would be considered as "Palestinians", though they would have all been fully aware of the fact that they were residing in Eretz Israel, a fact that Wikipedia seems rather slow to pick up on. The divisions among the "Palestinian Jews" at the time reflected the general divisions among Jews elsewhere. There were Arabized (Mustarab, cognate word to the medieval Spanish 'Mozarabs', Arabized Spanish Christians) Jews like those in the rest of the Middle East. There were Ladino-speaking Sephardic Jews from Spain (bear in mind that in the medieval period, the Spanish Jew Maimonides wrote his native Judeo-Arabic in Hebrew characters that would have been fully understood by Arabized Jews of the Middle East, but totally unintelligible to the Ladino-speaking Spanish Jews). There were Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazic Jews from Eastern Europe. This article is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to rewrite history, but bear in mind that Wikipedia cannot create facts on the ground in a bygone historical era. --Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.29.208 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since "Palestinian Jews" have been called "Palestinians" for at least 1500 years, your assertion about the Ottoman villayets is the one that is an attempt to rewrite history. Palestine is much older than the British post-WWI mandate, and for a long time its population was largely Jewish. The decline of the distinct traditions of the Palestinian Jews began with the Arab Muslim invasions of the 7th century, and was accelerated by the influx of Sefardim in the 15th century, and later in the 19th century by more Sefardim encouraged to settle in the region by the Ottomans. I don't pretend to know what motivates you, politics or something darker, but whatever the flaws of this article might include, none of them are circumscribed by the accusations you've made here. Tomer^talk 03:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jews of Iran film.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Studies Revision

"In Ashkenazi Jews, the proportion of male indigenous European genetic admixture amounts to around 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, and a total admixture estimate around 12.5%.[3]"

Basic Mendelian inheritance 101;

Eye color is passed through the father! Considering the number of blue eyes in Israel, and the United States among the Jews I think it was a LITTLE higher than "0.5%"

Go to hell! That is a human biological FACT; eye color is inherited from the father, NOT the mother! And blue eyes, are a RECESSIVE gene! Dark eyes dominate blue, only a high prevalence for the gene for blue eyes, will give a blue eyed baby! So I think the admixture is a LITTLE higher than 0.5% or 12.5%, hey, I'm just saying, there seems to be an inconsistency there between genetic findings, and Mendelian inheritance! A very basic, and crude view of genes, but nevertheless an ACCURATE one.

Revise the article, and please remove that scientific inacuracy.

One more time; eye color comes from the father. Dark eyed father impregnates blue eyed woman; baby will be born, with dark eyes. Blue eyed father impregnates dark eyed woman, its 50/50, could go either way. However, if there is a HIGH PREVALENCE of that RECESSIVE GENE in the mother then, the BABY WILL BE BORN WITH BLUE EYES. If among the ashkenazi, there are blue eyed people, it is because, there was a high prevalence, of mixture with Europeans.

So whoever posted that lie, can go to hell.

67.148.120.72 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

What does that have to do with anything ? Blue eyes exist in middle eastern populations. I personally know many Sefaradim and Mizrahim with blue eyes. And please refrain from harsh language. You can change the article yourself if you have sources for your claims.Benjil (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjil it's clear that who ever this editor is, his style is not welcomed in Wikipedia. Besides, the percentage of blue eyes among Ashkenazim is significantly lower than in typiacl European populations. They lach Nordic or Slavic features (that was scientificantly studied) and fair hair is not very common among Ashkenazi males in comparison to European populations. What's more that genetic is more accurate than subjective impression.--Gilisa (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2 is a broken link

Fourtildas (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel Section

I deleted a couple of unsourced sentences, one about an Iraqi immigrant who "remembers" getting worse housing than an Ashkenazi, and another claiming that Sephardim got worse quality housing than Ashkenazim. In general, this section is poorly sourced and biased. For example, Iraqis came en masse to Israel in 1950, two years AFTER the big wave of Ashkenazic Holocaust refugees. Given the lack of resources the state had, and given that some of the Ashkenazim were given the houses of Arab refugees, it's not especially surprising that worse housing was available to the Iraqis (and Yemenites). Also, this section fails to consider that Mizrahim tended to be religious and nonsocialist, and therefore threats to the ruling Labor Party, a completely non-racist explanation for discriminatory policies. Finally, the fact that Ashkenazim are overrepresented in higher education in Israel means very little, since Ashkenazim are overrepresented in every country they live in--just look at American universities.

Anyway, I deleted the two most egregious unsourced sentences, but this whole section needs more balance and especially more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.172 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK with that. By the way, someone knows of studies about sefaradim and ashkenazim in France ? This is a very interesting study case. This is the only big jewish community outside Israel with a large sefaradi section (in fact almost 2/3 of French Jews) and from what I understand and know, these sefaradim are as over-represented in universities, high tech, among doctors, politics etc... than ashkenazim. If this is true, this could enlighten many other issues regarding the discrimination accusations in Israel. Benjil (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel; The Exiles Ingathered section needs treatment

This is a complex and delicate subject and it is very poorly sourced (almost solely to adva) and doesn't present a balanced point of view. Adva's work is seen as controversial - while that doesn't disqualify them as a source, at the very least it should be flagged as non-neutral until balanced by opinions of those who disagree with adva (and there are plenty of academic-quality researchers that do). I will try to attend to that myself, time permitting. 212.143.191.189 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ostjuden - Eastern European Yiddish speakers as significant group?

It's very unusual that this article ignores Yiddish speakers as a culturally unique block. German Jews, and Austro-Hungarian Jews (as the article mentions), wanted to assimilate and speak German. Yiddish speakers, in Poland, etc, etc, wanted to use yiddish as a kind of national language (see Yiddish renaissance, for example. Hitler writes about these "Ostjuden" in Mein Kampf, as being a problem in Germany that needed to be expelled. Additionally, German Jews themselves (who spoke German), looked down on the Ostjuden Yiddish speakers as eastern barbarians. And the extermination camps (Auschwitz a prime example) killed primarily Yiddish speaking Jews. In fact, 85% of Jewish Holocaust victims were Yiddish speakers. That's why it seems somewhat bizarre that this particular ethnic block/division is barely discussed at all here - perhaps because no spokespeople remain from that group?. (If that's true, then the omission of that group is also an example of "forgetting the Holocaust").Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews expelled from Spain in the Roman and Carthaginian periods?

User:Ekarfi13 keeps inserting poorly-written material with the unsourced claim that Jews were expelled from Spain to the Maghreb in the Roman and Carthaginian period.[1] Ekarfi13, can you explain what your source is for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ekarfi13 has now inserted the following source for the claim:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=-SQC110YSk8C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Paul+Sebag,+Histoire+des+Juifs+de+Tunisie+:+des+origines+%C3%A0+nos+jours,+%C3%A9d.+L%E2%80%99Harmattan,+Paris,+1991,&source=bl&ots=uJkirK3a9i&sig=eG_5bVC_iOH0ItHW3yQOa1cE1bo&hl=fr&ei=XR_ITcGhFMPBswbjje3DDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Paul Sebag, Histoire des Juifs de Tunisie : des origines à nos jours, éd. L’Harmattan, Paris, 1991, p. 53.

Note that the link goes to page 105, while the actual footnote given is page 53, here: http://books.google.fr/books?id=-SQC110YSk8C&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false . As far as I can tell neither page even mentions Rome or Carthage, much less states that Jews were expelled from there. Ekarfi13, can you explain where the source says this? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I never claimed this. I stated clearly that the attestation of the Jewish presence in both Maghreb and Spain goes back to the Roman period. Thus I posted Paul Sebag as a source who actually does mention (like many authors) the first presence of Jews during the Roman period and as well make the "hypothesis" of a presence during the Carthage period. You obviously just have misunderstood the whole thing. **! Ekarfi13(talk</front> 19:20 17 may 2011(UTC)

These are the words you repeatedly inserted:

Maghrebi Jews are Jews who traditionally lived in the Maghreb region of North Africa (al-Maghrib,Arabic for "the west"), established Jewish communities before the arrival of Jews expelled from Spain during the Roman and Carthaginian periods.[2]

You quite clearly inserted "before the arrival of Jews expelled from Spain during the Roman and Carthaginian periods". Furthermore, the source says nothing whatsoever about Rome or Carthage. There was no misunderstanding on my part. A couple of weeks ago an editor was banned from editing in a topical area because he persistently misrepresented sources. You have done the same; the logical next step will be a similar banning of you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My source of Paul Sebag is clear about the point of the Roman period. Even the Jewish encyclopedia agrees with this. You are the only one here not accepting it. The point is I never stated any migration out of Spain in Roman period , since logically the migration towards Iberia starts at this period like clearly state this article [[History of the Jews of Spain]]. I am sorry if you misundertood.

I didn't misunderstand anything; you explicitly claimed Jews were "expelled from Spain during the Roman and Carthaginian periods". Please quote Sebag regarding "the point of the Roman period" - I see nothing about it on those pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Estimate of the jewish migration to europe wrong

this: Ashkenazim are the descendants of Jews who migrated into northern France and Germany around 800–1000, and later into Eastern Europe. is wrong, i live in Cologne/Germany and we officially have the oldest jewish community north of the alps - in the year 321 AD Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire decreed that jews are allowed to be elected into the city council, you can also read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Cologne and (in german) here: http://sgk.de/index.php/historie.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.0.55 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

This recent set of edits is not very well written and provides no citation. I think some of it is probably accurate, but it needs scrutiny if any of it is to ramain in the article.

I believe the statement about Kabul and Gandhara is accurate, but needs citation. I'm guessing 'the Greco-Buddhism area' means 'the Greco-Buddhist era'; if so, I think it is also accurate, but needs citation. From there, the writing gets rather poor and at the very least deserves editing. Our article Pashtun people seems to say that recent genetic research bears out the longstanding, long controversial claim of the genetic relation of the Pashtuns to the Jews. Someone who follows these things more closely than I should probably edit. But the badly written text should not stand as it is now written. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's completely unsourced, and talks about rumours. WP:SOFIXIT. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know where to find a book that could be a source for the alleged Jewish ancestry of the Pashtun. And yes, the English needs fixing. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edited that text. We actually have Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites, so I don't think that my book is needed here. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Alternative target name should be proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Jewish ethnic divisions → Jewish ancestral divisions – Since Jews are an ethno-religious group, it is highly inaccurate to describe "ethnic" groups within the Jewish community. We are technically speaking of various internal differences in ancestral background (Mizrahi, Maghrebi, Romaniote, Turkish, Polish, Russian etc.) and religious rite (Ashkenasi, Sephardi, Yemenite, Karaite), but not really different ethnic groups. There are of course exceptional small communities, which are claiming Jewish ancestry or practicing Mosaic faith, such as the Lemba, the Black Hebrew Israelites, the Russian Subbotniks and possibly few more marginal cases, which are not recognized as ethnic Jews, even though claiming so. I therefore suggest this article to be rename into Jewish ancestral divisions.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is a good one, but the prosed new name is rather awkward. So my vote is "neutral". Debresser (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A google search for the phrase "Jewish ancestral divisions" gives 3 results, all wikipedia discussions, so obviously this is not a phrase that is used. Do not rename. Editor2020 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a better target. The nom has a good point though, and leaving at the current title isn't a good choice. How about simply Jewish ancestry which currently redirects to Jews? That would be my first choice. --87.79.214.131 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, maybe one could argue that Jewish Ashkenazi and Jewish Sefaradi are separate sub-ethnicities of the Jewish ethnic-religious group, and then the current name could be maintained. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect, because today most relate to Ashkenasim as religious affiliation (which also gave birth to the Hassidic movements), and the same way Sephardim is per WP:COMMONNAME a religious affiliation. In reality, much of the modern Ashkenasim are ancestrally a mixed stock of Jews from Germania, Spain and Balkans; same way modern Sephardim are mostly a mix of Jews of Maghreb with influx of Jews from Iberia, while Turkish, Syrian and Lebanese Jews are to some degree Mizrahim with influx of Jews from Iberia and Germania. In any case, in Israel the mixup among the communities makes Sephardim, Ashkenasim and Hassidim into more a religious style affiliation rather than any ancestral background (there are now quiet many Temanim joined to the ranks of Hassidim for example).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true. The words Ashkenazi and Sefaradi have always been indicative of geographic (ancestral) origin, and added after time only after that the sub-ethnic variations of Judaism practiced in those regions. I'd say that there is no connection whatsoever with religion. I have no idea where Grayshark09 got these wrong ideas, but in Dutch there is an appropriate saying "hij heeft de klok horen luiden, maar hij weet niet waar de klepel hangt" (he has heard something about it, but he does not know the rights of it). Debresser (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input, it is priceless.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, with this addition at least i can understand what you meant; however there is no argument that once (in the Middle Ages) there indeed were two main groups in Ahskenas (Germania) and Sepharad (Iberia), containing Ashkenasi and Sephardic Jewish communities. One however must be aware that both communities were not isolated and a constant movement was between those societies and those of North Africa, Balkans and Persia (former Babylon). Yemenite Jews perhaps are the only ones truly remained isolated for many centuries, but they are a separate case. No matter what, with the collapse of Ashkenasi community (expulsions and crusades 11-13 centuries) and the later collapse of Sephardi one (11-15 centuries), the terms first followed the exiles, but later became synonymous largely with the prayer style. Today Georgian, Caucasian, Mizrahi (including Babylonian/Persian etc. and Yemenites) all identify "Sephardic", even though there is no ancestry whatsorever from Sephardic Jews in their linage. On the other hand the Sephardics which settled in Netherlands, Germania and Poland were absorbed into the Ashkenasi culture and their descendants self-identify as "Ashkenasi", even though many of them (i guess around 5% of those defined as "Ashkenasi" today) still carry the old surnames from Iberia.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can speak of the "collapse" of either Ashkenazi or Sefaradi community. Your claim that they became synonymous with a prayer style, is so far from the truth, that I still have not the slightest idea where you take that from. Any Jew, almost without exception, can tell you whether he is Sefaradi or Ashkenazi, even if he is not religious and he will not mean his prayer rites. This is absolutely and exclusively related to geographic (ancestral) origin.

Note, I do hope you are not under the impression that Ashkenaz stands only for Germany and Sefarad only for Spain? Debresser (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Jews of Ashkenas were defined as "Yiddish-culture" society, practicing Jerusalem Talmud with the Ashkenasi prayer style; the Jews of Sepharad were defined as "Ladino-culture" society, practicing Talmud Babel with the Sephardi prayer style. Those definitions are not relevant as both Yiddish and Ladino are now spoken by a very small percentage of Jews (especially Ladino), and the prayer styles don't define ancestry any more - both in Israel where the prayer styles are mixed (you can find Ashkenasi, Sephardi and Hassidic styles in most synagogues), but of course also in the US, where instead of Rabbinic Ashkenasi the majority of Jews have become Reformist and Conservative.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, I'm sorry, but that is so mixed up with things that are so utterly not connected. We will have to disregard your opinions till such time you start saying something that at least makes some sense. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you consider yourself to be many entities; or rather you consider yourself speaking in Gollum's style? Anyway, your multiple identities is not the issue here... Greyshark09 (talk)

Oppose We cannot automatically assume that significant cultural or other divisions within the Jews are invariably a reflection of different ancestry, although sometimes they may be. Ethnicity is a complex phenomenom, sometimes you can get significant divisions within a community which has a large amount in common in relation to the wider world. PatGallacher (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The only Google result for this phrase is a nonsense page that may be a partial Wikipedia mirror (manlibido.comoj.com). No results in Google Scholar or Google Books. Sorry, Greyshark, but your proposed name appears to be WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - ok, i get it - my proposal was not better than the current title; any alternative name?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, your premise is that "ethnic divisions" is inaccurate because Jews are one ethnic group, right? But I don't think the title contradicts that. I think it's understood as Jewish ethnic subdivisions, which is a potential alternative title but also not really attested in reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BDD. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Subdivisions is better than the current title; after this proposal is closed and if no better alternatives proposed let's make a vote on this suggestion.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We are already discussing it. So far BDD and I are against, and for good reason. It's awkward and not found much in sources. Also, please do not forget Wikipedia:NOTVOTE. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My previous edit was self-reverted considering WP:NOTOVOTE, no problem - i shall take into account.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Though I agree the name should be changed, ancestoral devisions is not precise because they all had ancestors in Israel. I think sub-ethnic divisions would be a better name! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Jewish ethnic divisions → Jewish ethnic subdivisions –

• Support. Jews are technically one ethnic group so it's not correct to say ethnic decisions, but I don't like the ancestoral divisions name because it's confusing so I oppose to that idea. All Jews had ancestors in Israel, so what ancestors are we talking about?

Someone above mentioned that it would be correct to say Jewish sub-ethnic divisions, I think it's the correct name and we should use it. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - i think it was "Jewish ethnic subdivisions", not "Jewish sub-ethnic divisions".Greyshark09 (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed it! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The distinctions between the groups highlighted on this page are too slight to be called "ethnic divisions", "ethnic subdivisions", or "ancestral divisions". I would suggest "subgroups". A title such as "Jewish subgroups" receives almost four million Google hits.[3] Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Four million? The link you're showing gives just under four thousand, and that's without -wikipedia. That sounded like a good name to me, but now I'm concerned it's too marginal. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point but I think subgroups is confusing because it might mean reform Jews, conservative Jews and stuff like that. I think Jewish ethnic subdivisions is the most logical suggestion because we are talking about the division made by geography. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "subgroups" is vague and likely to be confused with Jewish religious movements. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think changing "divisions" to "subdivisions" is picayune. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the title "Jewish ethnic subdivisions".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This idea was mentioned in the previous paragraph, and I already announced my opposition then. I thin it was unnecessary to open this second paragraph, as this was discussed and more or less rejected already there. Main reason, the term is correct, but reeks of original research and a lack of sources. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose longer name for no substantive difference. If there are no Jewish ethnic divisions, then there are no subdivisions either, since subdivisions divide up divisions. Without divisions, there can be no subdivisions. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Note: "Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews represent two distinct subcultures of Judaism."[4] Note the section heading: "Other Jewish Subcultures".[5] I think the title for this article should be "Jewish subcultures". Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map removed?

I might be mistaken, but was this map removed?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jews_1490.png

I'd think it would be a valuable contribution to this article and should be added (again). BenjaminKay (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you noticed, there is a note on the map saying "The accuracy of this map is disputed for the following reason(s): map provides no absolutely no source for its data". That is a very good reason not to have it. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

An IP ...

An IP, asserting the Jews are not an ethnicity (despite me pointing him here), is making deletions based on this assertion, as here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Even given that this is a something of a summary article, it is very under-referenced. There ought at least to be references to other works that list Jewish ethnic divisions. There are scholarly books on this topic; none are cited. - Jmabel / Talk 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction

The current article, in the sub-section "Modern divisions," wrongly states twice in that section, "The Teimanim from Yemen and Oman, etc." Being familiar with this community, having lived both in Yemen and presently in Israel, Jews as a group have never lived in Oman, although individual Jewish travelers may have passed through there. The word "Oman" should be deleted from the section, since Teimanim (or Yemenite Jews) is a generic term implying only those communities who lived in Yemen and in the Aden-Hadramawt region of South Yemen, but NOT in Oman.Davidbena (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find any contrary evidence, so I'm happy to see the word "Oman" go. It can come back later if someone finds a sufficient source for it. Zero^talk 03:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jewish ethnic divisions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916113652/http://www.familytreedna.com:80/nature97385.html to http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060929152507/http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/090806JTA_Armenia.shtml to http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/090806JTA_Armenia.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The first was wrong, I replaced it by an earlier link that works. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)