Talk:Mizrahi Jews/Archive 1

message: Hi guys, I seem to have walked into a revert war here, and in my typical nosy style I thought I'd butt in.
As pro-israeli as I am (I'm not jewish just if anyone feels it matters), I have to ask what the relevance of a list of alleged atrocities against jews in arab nations has to do with this article?  This article should discuss what a Mizrahi Jew is, and any particular features about them worth noting.  If you feel it necessary to point out they are largely migrating to Israel due to perceived oppression, that's fine too, but to turn the article into little more than a list of alleged atrocities (not that I deny for a second they happened) is just irrelevant and extremely NPOV. Basically, the "In Yemen", "In Egypt" "In Iraq" paragraphs are redundant, it's already stated above that many fled persecution following the creation of Israel, a list of claimed atrocities adds nothing to the knowledge of what is a Mizrahi Jew, and only serves to vilify one side of the Israeli/Arab debate, which is really not what Wikipedia is for, no matter how much you think the vilification is or is not deserved. Plasma 15:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's pretty relevant to the history of each of these Mizrahi groups, don't you? But I'm tired of fighting, particularly here. Jayjg 16:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice revert war... 

message: *Arab riots and pogroms against Mizrahi Jews are not a "consequence" of the creation of Israel, but a "reaction" to it.  Killing native Jews is not a "something that logically or naturally follows" from the creation of Israel, but is a "response to a stimulus", specifically the creation of Israel.  Please see dictionary definitions of these words.
*Also note, I have left in the creation of the Arab refugees as one of the reasons for the rioting, even though it is demonstrably false, since the riots etc. started long before there were any Arab refugees.  While the complaints today are about the refugees, back then it was all about Israel, the refugees hardly registered.
*The Mizrahi refugee situation started in 1948, but there were still large Mizrahi communities around in the mid 50s, including those in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and arguably in Morocco and Algeria.  Events in the 50s and 60s, most notably the Egyptian expulsion, led to a continued emigration of refugees.  The emigration was largely over by the late 60s, except for those Jews trapped in Syria.  Your edits made it seem like the emigration all happened around the 1948 war, which it didn't.
*Please stop creating 65 word sentences, and one sentence paragraphs.  This is simply bad form, and extremely difficult to read.
*A thousand Mizrahi communities do not remain; rather, perhaps a dozen remain, none with more than 200 Jews.  Your edit changed the meaning entirely to indicate that 1000 communities remain, when in fact it is at most 1000 Mizrahi Jews who remain in Arab and Muslim lands.  And since these Jews are coming to Israel at a rate of 10 or 20 a year, the emigration is indeed a "trickle".
*As has been pointed out, this is an article about Mizrahi Jews, not the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Statistics about the Palestinian refugees, while entirely appropriate for the many Israeli and Palestinian articles they are quoted in, do not belong in this article, which is about Mizrahi Jews. Jayjg 18:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments about Morroccan Jews below, who are arguably not Mizrahi.  And Turkish Jews are certainly not Mizrahi, Turkish Jews were Sepharadi - in fact, Turkey held the primary Sepharadi population after the expulsion. Jayjg 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the latest edits 

message: Mizrahi Jews are Jews from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt.  Jews from Morocco are more Sephardi than Mizrahi, as Morocco absorbed many of the Sephardi Jews after the expulsion, to the extent that they maintained a unique identity, so it's hard to say that the Jews left in Morocco are Mizrahim: "In certain areas, where the Sephardic immigration was weak, Sephardim assimilated into the predominantly Mizrahi communities, taking on all Mizrahi traditions and retaining just a hint of Sephardic heritage--such as Spanish-sounding names. In countries such as Morocco, however, Spanish and Portuguese Jews came in droves, and the Sephardic community set up its own synagogues and schools, remaining separate from the Mizrahi community."  Jayjg 03:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mizrahi Jews still living in Arab/Muslim countries 

message: It might be worth adding this link:
* Reflections by an Arab Jew
It's from an anti-occupation site, and I know how everyone's a bit jumpy about POV on that issue, so I thought I'd mention it here first. —Ashley Y 03:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
::Well, that's one woman's POV. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found article 

message: Which Christian Arab societies are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutral language you've used is better. In any case, the Christian Arabs who were violent against their local Jews were the Maronite Catholics from Lebanon. Many of these Lebanese Christians are still as hostile towards Jews and Israel as their fellow Lebanese Muslim compatriots. Obviously there also exist Coptic Christians in Egypt, but i am still looking into their reaction at that time towards Jews and the creation of the Jewish state. Al-Andalus 21:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim and Christian Arab societies? 

message: How many Iranian Jews are there today? —Ashley Y 07:20, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
:11,000.  Good point, they're not covered in the article, I'll add them. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Jews 

message: This is rediculous. Mizrahi has only come to be used this way since the founding of the State of Israel, and even late into that. Before then, Mizrahi referred to Ashkenazi religious zionists. It still does.
Calling these people Sephardim is not incorrect. The Jewish world is devided between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Nobody disputes the Ben Ish Chai was a Sephardi gadol. You're creating an anachronism by projecting an artificial Israeli linguistic creation backwords in time, and redefining "Sephardi" retroactively around that definition.
Calling all Sephardim "Sephardim" is no more Ashkenazi arrogance than calling all Ashkenzim "Ashkenazim" is, even though only a tiny minority are actually from Germany. Retroactively naming most Sephardim, Mirachim, is Israeli linguistic arrogance. It is claiming that because people in Israel decided to spring a new name on a bunch of people, that should apply retroactively through time. 88.152.17.50 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the definition was between Sephardim and Ashkenazim also. I was aware that Sephardim are now the majority in Israel, a change that not everyone is easy with.--Parkwells 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't stand that term Mizrahi myself, for all sorts of reasons; but we have to reflect current usage.  I think we have to accept that Sephardi has two meanings, a narrow one (Spanish Jew) and a broad one (Jew of the Spanish rite).  Thus, in one sense, within (say) the Syrian community one could distinguish Sephardi families from Musta'arabi families; but in another the whole Syrian community is part of the Sephardi world.  Modern prayer books often speak of "Sephardim and Edot ha-Mizrach", as an overall description, sparing the need to draw exact boundaries between the two components. For a detailed account of the semantic differences, see my edit under "Peace proposals" below. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misdefinition 

message: Al-Andalus, your additions speak of a revival of Arab Jewish identity among minority circles, but to my knowledge, this (the Arab part) remains largely limited to the use of the name. Do you have sources depicting some of this (organized events, statements, writings, etc.)? If not, do you not think it should be reworded to account for it being limited to phraseology rather than cultural and other aspects specifically linked to AJs? Thanks. El_C 08:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review my two substantial edits to the lead and let me know what you think Al-Andalus, Jay, Tomer, and everyone else. Thanks. El_C 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits seem good; I've copyedited a little, including changing the "minority circles" to something more encyclopedic.  I'm not sure what a "minority circle" does, whether holding hands, dancing the hora, or whatever, but the phrase is meaningless at best. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Hopefully this is a good omen, and we can hash things out here beforehand in the future.  Tomer TALK 09:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
--------
I sectioned this part off and sighned Al-Andalus' name in each partition. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: *No comment! El_C 01:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Shouldn't David Levy and Silvan Shalom be listed as Sephardi Jews as opposed to Mizrahi Jews? I believe that they are from North Africa, and not Asia. 64.231.162.68 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews indigenous to North Africa are Mizrahi. It is the non-indigenous Jews of North Africa - the ones that originated in Spain and Portugal and then fled to North Africa during the Spanish or Portuguese Inquisition - that are Sephardim. Al-Andalus 08:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  North African Jews 

message: Al-Andalus, you keep changing the disambiguation at the top to read that Mizrahi Jews have their "origins" or "originate" in the countries they most recently come from. This an unsupported claim that defies both conventional history and their own beliefs, which says they generally "originated" in Kingdom of Judah.  I'm going to restore the lead to Arniep's version; please propose changes here, and please ensure they address the concerns I have raised.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that my comment below was in response to a personal attack from Al-Andalus's (since removed) in which, among other things, he described me as an "Ashkenazi collaborator."  It looks kind of silly there all on its own now. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Does anyone other than Jayjg have a problem with "This article deals with the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East and North Africa. For the organization of the Religious Zionist Movement, please see Mizrachi.". Even this last edit was not to Jayjg's liking. It no longer says native, indigenous, origin or originate -  terms that Jayjg disaproved, lest they validate the Mizrahim's Jewishness more than his. You're a European Jew, deal with it. Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda. Al-Andalus 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both awkward English and inaccurate, duplicated and too long for a disambiguation opening anyway. Mizrahi Jews original in Israel, not in some mythical "largely contiguous area", Gruzim certainly don't live in that "contiguous area", and Yemenite Jews are arguably not even Mizrahim.  The truth is that the term "Mizrahi" is a modern term used as a grab-bag for Jewish communities whose main commonality is that they are not Ashkenazi or Sephardi, as the article itself points out.  Please stop reverting, and get consensus for your proposed insertions.  And if any of your future comments refer to me personally, rather than article content, or contain other personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia:Civility policies, I will simply not bother responding. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, if Jay is an "Ashkenazi collaborator" [whatever the hell that means, Al-Andalus], I must be a "Sfaradi collaborator"...  The language you've proposed contains English words, but the grammar and syntax is decidedly not English... in fact, it's so horrendous that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean!  Your nonsensical claims that Jay's disapproval of the language have something to do with his being a "European Jew" are disingenuous at best, and a gratuitous ad hominem attack at worst... in neither case, however, is your position advanced;  the text you've proposed is just plain bad, regardless of whence Jay's ancestors hail.  In fact, the "English" with which you formulate your defense of your position is so unspeakably bad that it's not just your proposed wording I don't understand, it's the arguments themselves!  What on God's green earth is "Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda." supposed to mean?  The only thing I can imagine is "Don't deprive Mizraḥim [a term no self-respecting "Mizraḥi" would ever use to describe themself] of their origins [how exactly is Jay doing that?], history [how could Jay do that even if he tried?!] and identity [WHAT?!  Using the term "Mizraḥi" is the surest way to accomplish that goal!!!] for your personal agenda [what?!  are you seriously going to stand there and say Jay has an agenda here other than improving the WP project?!]"...  Al-Andalus...seriously.  These outbursts do nothing to strengthen any point you think you might have, and the statements you make on the subject make you sound increasingly ill-informed.  If you're descended from Mizrajim, fine.  If it means that much to you, drop the shroud of Islam and reclaim your Jewish heritage.  You can't live forever with one foot in each of two houses. Otherwise stop.  Clearly something is preventing you from discussing the subject rationally.  Until you can, perhaps it'd be best for you to work on fixing the other areas of your life that need more work.  Wikipedia will survive while you sort out your life...  Tomer TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I'd prefer to avoid, like the plague, use of the term "sub-ethnicity" or any variants thereof.  Also, if you understand the content of the article, you'd know "the Mizrahim" didn't "originate", they were invented by the Zionist racists in the early days of the State.  If you reread the article and still don't understand that, let me know and I'll see what I can do to rewrite it to make that point clearer...  Tomer TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love to find a better word than sub-ethnicities, feel free to suggest one. You will notice, by the way, I didn't say that they constituted a single sub-ethnicity of the Jews: clearly they don't. The word was deliberately plural. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you're aware, but Al-Andalus wants to insert the phrase in two separate places in the article, not just the disambiguation.  In the opening paragraph Al-Andalus wants to define Mizrahi Jews as the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East (Southwest Asia) and North Africa; that is to say, their ancestors never left this largely contiguous region.  It currently states that they are Jews whose ancestors resided in communities which were in continuous contact with the rest of the Jewish world, yet were neither Ashkenazi Jews nor Sephardi Jews.  I argue that Al-Andalus's wording is both poorly written and inaccurate.  In reality "Mizrahi" is a word used to designate Jews who are neither Sephardi or Ashkenazi, but who (unlike, for example, Beta Israel) were in continuous contact with rest of the Jewish world.  It has nothing to do with any "largely contiguous region", whatever that means - Georgia, for example, is not in the Middle East, and it's not even agreed wheter or not Yemenite Jews are Mizrahi Jews.  Also, they are not "pre-diaspora Jewry", but very much part of the Jewish diaspora.  Perhaps the largest Mizrahi Jewish population are Iraqi Jews, descendents of the Jews of the very first Jewish diaspora. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Al-Andalus' proposal is equal parts nonsensical and unacceptable.  I don't care if their ancestors never left "this largely contiguous region" (this WHAT?!) ... Under further consideration, I am of the opinion that the most ridiculous part of this entire discussion is that it's taken more than 10 seconds, cumulatively, of otherwise-productive editors' valuable time...  Tomer TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Origins", "Originate" 

message: I think it's problematic to describe Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi" - the Cochin Jews appear to consist of at least two sub-communities, one ancient, and one about 400 years old (Paradesi Jews).  While the latter are made up of both Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, I've never heard that the community as a whole is referred to as "Mizrahi". Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They'd certainly be shocked as hell to hear they are Mizrahi. They're about as Mizrahi as Jayjg. But they're sui generis, really, none of the big groupings really fits. Mizrahi least of all, though. If we pick another designation at random we'll do better. Babajobu 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jayjg, the designations Mizrahi, Sephardi and Ashkenazi are not entirely straightforward. That said, it is not unreasonable to include all the former and present Jewish communities of India and Ethiopia as part of the "Mizrahim". Regards, gidonb 17:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gidon, Sephardi and Ashkenazi have strict definitions that are quite unambiguous, though Sephardi in particular has a more loose definition that is technically inaccurate but sometimes used.  It is "Mizrahi" that is "not entirely straightforward", as it is a new term that is not well defined.  That said, we cannot define Mizrahi ourselves, but use it the way others do. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I challenge anyone to find a single reputable source that describes any of the Jews of Kerala as Mizrahi. Babajobu 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Gidon, yeah, I definitely accept your point that these terms are fluid and inconsistently applied, and that if we are looking for a nice, clean formula for which Jews belong to which group, we'll remain permanently disappointed. But if we're going to characterize the Fort Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi", we really must be able to produce one published work that describes them as such. And my guess is that we won't find any such source. The origins of the Cochin community are so distinctive and so divorced from the Mizrahi heartland in the Middle East that Mizrahi seems to me a very infelicitous and unlikely term for them. Perhaps for the Jews in Northern India it'd be a bit less of a stretch. Babajobu 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that Al-Andalus has updated article to reflect that Cochin Jews do not fit comfortably with term "Mizrahi", but Baghdadi Jews do. I think this is much better, and I hope Cochin Jews don't creep back into the article. Babajobu 15:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochin Jews Mizrahi? 

message: As pointed out above, while the Ashkenazi and Sephardi are well-defined, there seems to be a problem defining the Mizrahi. I cannot help noticing that the article gives no actual reference to such a definition in the literature. Can anyone point us to some work on the subject? The definition in the article speaks of "continuous contact" with the rest of Jewry, the meaning of which is unclear to me. Have the Cochin Jews had less contact with the rest of Jewry than remote Kurdish communities? Surely there must be some scholar work that identifies which are the Mizrahi communities, not just guesswork.
I would like to note that contrary to the very strong distinction make in the article between Mizrahi and "everything non-Ashkenazi", the (presumably incorrect) definition of Mizrahi as non-Ashkenazi or non-European is very prevalent in modern Israel and has a central political role, from Independence through the Wadi Salib riots, the (Israeli) Black Panthers movement, Shas and the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow. Sami Shalom Chetrit in his book "The Mizrahi Struggle in Israel Between Oppression and Liberation, Identification and Alternative" clamps all non-Ashkenazis together as "Mizrahi", being an oppressed class, and draws parallels between Mizrahi and "Oriental" a la Edward Said (i.e., "Oriental" is everything not "Western"). While Chetrit has a somewhat radical agenda, I assure you that what he describes is a reality in Israeli socienty and politics.--Doron 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

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

message: As I've noted above, in some social and political contexts, Sephardi Jews from Islamic countries are considered "mizrahi" in Israel. There has not been any concensus here on this matter. Earlier, I've removed David Levy from the Distinguished Mizrahi personalities list as he is not mizrahi by the strict definition, and now I see Amir Peretz has been added. I do think that the article lacks a proper discussion if the socio-political meaning of the term in Israel. On the other hand, there should be some sort of concensus on this matter. If Moroccan Jews are included, there are a whole lot of distinguished people that should be added to the list.--Doron 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this really needs to be sorted out, there's no use working on the rest of the article until we have some sense of how we're defining the term. Babajobu 08:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If only the Israelis didn't speak/confound Hebrew, things would be so much easier...   TShilo12 07:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you are a prescriptivist...--Doron 08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways, yes, but that's not my motivation here.  I fully support discussing the Israeli usage of both Mizrachi and Sfaradi, as well as of Ashkenazi.  That said, using Israeli usage alone (including the Academy's Ashkenazi-"Sefardic pronunciation"-centric "official" transliteration scheme) as the sole arbiter of "correct" usage is incorrect at best, insulting and misleading at worst.  TShilo12 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Transliteration aside, nobody is advocating the "Israeli usage" as the sole usage, I merely ask it be mentioned. Though I would be very grateful if you could provide a reference to a non-"Israeli" "correct" definition of the term, which I have yet to see. And by the way, how is it insulting?--Doron 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly that it should be mentioned.  As for a non-Israeli definition, "Oriental Jews", the English translation of "Mizrachim", have been discussed often in non-Israeli settings, and long before the establishment of Israel.  As for "insulting", I wasn't saying you were advocating adopting Israeli usage as "authoritative" wrt the meaning of Mizraḥi here, and thereby "insulting" anyone; my comment was more germane the discussion about the "accuracy" of the Academy's transliterations elsewhere, which I mentioned above, albeit parenthetically. TShilo12 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moroccan Jews 

message: I've updated the definition of "Mizrahi" to reflect some of the concerns here (the definition given for Ashkenazi Jews does not seem to be any better). I also propose taking off the "dispute" tag--but first wanted to see how people react to the changes. If you have any problems, by all means go ahead and edit the article yourself. Pointing to the Hebrew article and saying that's better doesn't do anyone any service. AucamanTalk 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is still not resolved. I do not agree with the assertions made in this article, and I am yet to see anything in this article sourced. The contents of the Hebrew article are what I am familiar with, and it is well sourced. I'll translate it to replace this article when I find the time, unless of course you can address my concerns, given above.--Doron 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the concept Mizrahim is mostly used in Israel, it is reasonable to use the Israeli definition is the lead. The Mizrahi vs. Sephardi vs. Ashkenazi typology can be mentioned, but imho does not deserve even nearly such a central place in a fairly weighted global definition of the concept Mizrahim. Regards, gidonb 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

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

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

message: Andalus states that Arab Jew describes himself well, as do some Israelis. We all agree that the concept never really took off in Israel. Many pull and push factors may be named to explain why it did not take off or may had taken off under different circumstances. Andalus supports in this discussion a critical theoretic approach (for example neo-Marxism), where the reason why the concept does not work has to do with a class struggle in a (near) horizontally ethnically-stratified Israeli society. To keep the discussion POV, I would just list the history of the concept and name the factors that made it more and less likely to be used. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Before I will change anything I would appreciate some reactions. I would also like to know what happened to our welcome intention to undo the mutual exclusiveness of the concepts Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews. gidonb 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fe! what a mess!  Tomertalk 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Jews, Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews 

message: Iran is located in Southwest Asia (MIDDLE EAST). Majority of countries their are Arabs.BUT IRAN IS NOT. SO THE ISRAELI PRESIDENT AND DEFENCE MINISTER OF ISRAEL ARE FROM IRAN.
most of Iran is Persian not Arab. 
KingKongIran 00:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mizrahi Jews are not just from Arab countries. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Al-Andalus has again returned to the article, attempting to insert various POV and ungrammatical statements, without even bothering to use edit comments, much less introduce them on the Talk: page first.  His most recent attempt included this modified paragraph:
...its use by the Mizrahim themselves varied; whether used as a simple discriptor of origin or as a label of ethnic identity. Most Iraqi Jews, for example, "viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality"  to other Arab Iraqis (Muslim or Christian.) Both in Israel and the diaspora, the term is rarely used today, and is discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government. There is a minority among the Mizrahim who promote reintroducing the designation Arab Jews over "Mizrahi", however,...
The first sentence is ungrammatical and speculative. The second sentence does not refer to usage of the term "Arab Jews" at all, but rather quotes (and then interprets) a paper by a sociologist who claimed that in the 1920s Iraqi Jews saw themselves as "Arabs of the Jewish faith".  The third sentence introduces an uncited POV claim, that the term is "discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government".  The fourth sentence is ungrammatical. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you make your first comment on Wikipedia on an alleged personal nature of a discussion by and about persons you did not know before?! I hope that you find many areas for constructive contributions here at Wikipedia. gidonb 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This contribution also remained the only one. This is very sad for the person had planned that EK would identify her or him best while making Wikipedia a richer source of knowledge. gidonb 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Andalus again 

message: Iraqi Jews and Middle-Eastern Jews in general rarely described or considered themselves as Arabs if at all!! Sure, my dad's family from Baghdad spoke Arabic which was different from the Arabic spoken by Baghdadi Muslims or Baghdadi Christians. In Baghdad people coould tell if you were Jewish or Muslim or Christian the moment you opened your mouth and spoke. My father's family and his community never saw themselves as Arabs but were proud to be Baghdadi Jews and especially took pride in being descended from Jewish communities that pre-dated the Arab-Islamic conquest of the region. A more accurate term would be Arabic-Speaking Jews rather than Arab Jews as this label never really took off either among Jews in Israel or when they used to live in the Middle-East before being expelled en masse. Middle-Eastern Jews always succeeded in learning the language of the conquerors and wrote in it, spoke in it, sang in it and partcicpated actively in the general culture. However, they always maintained a separate communal Jewish identity and Hebrew and Aramic remained in constant use. My mother's family which is also from Iraq but from Zakho, in the North and they speak Aramaic and they DEFINTELY DO NOT identify as Arabs. They all spoke Kurdish, Turkish or Persian but didn't even identify as Turks or Kurds let alone Arabs. The tiny minority of Mizrahi Professors and Academics who are trying to popularize the term "Arab-Jew" are exactly that...a MINORITY. In addition to this, this new "Arab-Jewish" identity of resistance doesn't seem to factor in that not all Middle-eastern Jews spoke Arabic or lived in Arab countries.
--Ben Zakai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Jews 

message: I realize this is something of a radical suggestion, but mightn't it be better (considering the amount of controversy generated by this article) to rewrite the article as being about the term itself (i.e. the usages of the term), rather than presenting it along with the entries on the Ashkenazi and the Sephardim, which, by contrast, appear to be realtively uncontroversial terms embraced by the various groups they are presented as describing?  In this way, the different perspectives may be explored in the body of the article, and the shifting, ambiguous nature of the relations between the various groups of Jews in Israel might be present on the surface.  My impression is that "Mizrahi" came into usage because people used to thinking in terms of Ashkenazi and Sephardim started finding Jews that did not fit the traditional categories, and "Mizrahi" was a comfortable way of extending the existing conceptual division to include the new groups.  Such a term rather resembles the "Here there be dragons" trope, eh?  Even without the red herrings about Arab Jews, and whatnot, the term Mizrahi is a sloppy term.  There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not have an article treating the term as if its extension was clear enough to warrant it being lumped together with "Ashkenazi" and "Sephardim."
I don't really know anything about this subject beyond what I've read here.  It just seems to me like the controversy here is mainly semantic, and arises from the ambiguity of the term itself.
:Everything you say should be considered, but I think this article is pretty neutral the way it stands (at least compared to some other articles). People using the term in other articles, however, should be a little more careful. AucamanTalk 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Suggestion 

message: I am gonna remove the ethnic box from this article as it clearly doesn't belong here. --Kash 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it at this time. It appears to be used for most of the Jewish ethnic group articles.  —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an ethnic group 

message: The article states 
"the Mizrahim are not Sephardic, as they are not descended from those Jews who were expelled from Sepharad (the Iberian peninsula) during the Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition.,
yet David Sassoon and Charles Saatchi are (originally) Arabic speaking Jews but are descended from Sephardic Jews and so presumably are many other "Mizrahi". Arniep 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think Sassoon and Saatchi are Sephardi? Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Sassoons were descended from the Ibn Shoshans of Spain  so presumably considered themselves Sephardic and Charles Saatchi is described as being "born into a Sephardic Jewish family" in his article. Surely many Jews in the arabic speaking countries were descended from Jews from the Iberian peninsular therefore the statement that they are not is a distortion. Arniep 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think the Ottoman Empire had a large Sephardi Jewish population and many of them could have moved south toward Iran and Iraq at some point. I don't think anyone is claiming the Mizrahi category to be completely independent of the other two. Even within Ashkenazim and Sephardim you have groups of Mizrahi origins. It's best to understand these categorizations as geographical/historical, not ethnic/racial. So I guess it's not exactly accurate to say they're "descendants" of anyone in particular, but I don't think these are major concerns, so I'm not [bother to offer alternative wordings. AucamanTalk 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely in light of the above the statement "the Mizrahim are not Sephardic, as they are not descended from those Jews who were expelled from Sepharad (the Iberian peninsula)" remains inaccurate. Arniep 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I'm busy with enough controversies and adding one more to the list is not exactly in my short-term interest. I'll try to have your points in mind. But if this is really bothering you you can propose some alternative wordings and try to swing more users on your side. This article does not appear to be high up on anybody's list of interests, so it shouldn't be hard to make some changes. AucamanTalk 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Arnie, while the Sassoons may well have descended from a particular Spanish family, they may have intermarried over many centuries into other Jewish groups.  In fact, this was quite common, and it was only in certain areas that they maintained their unique identity and customs (mostly in Turkey/Greece/Bulgaria, Morrocco, and Holland).  As for Saatchi, we don't use Wikipedia as a source, and I don't see any citation in that article. Jayjg (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of sources describe the Sassoons as Sephardi , , , , ,  , and also mention the Sephardi community of Baghdad. Arniep 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is, can you be both Sephardi and Mizrahi (I think the answer is yes which means the above sentence should be removed)? Arniep 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sephardim can be considered Mizrahi, but I'm not 100% sure on this. I've never heard otherwise and I believe "Mizrahim" is inclusive of all Eastern groups. Yairzohar 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're wrong - there are lots of links at the bottom of the article, and there are many books which offer an exact definition of "Mizrahim" which is the opposite of "Ashkenazim". It started from political activism but now is in wide use. I don't think the definition should be disputed. Yairzohar 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph was, for the most part, correct and should not have been removed. -- Olve 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not if you want to express yourself accurately. Relatively popular (but not particularily well-oriented) Ashkenazi usage has led to this misunderstanding... -- Olve 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy

message: I think this whole article needs some sources. Most of the material, especially the definition of who Mizrahi Jews are, is unsourced and probably violates WP:NOR. Until some sources are found you can't really talk about who's Mizrahi and who's not. AucamanTalk 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're wrong - there are lots of links at the bottom of the article, and there are many books which offer an exact definition of "Mizrahim" which is the opposite of "Ashkenazim". It started from political activism but now is in wide use. I don't think the definition should be disputed. Yairzohar 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph was, for the most part, correct and should not have been removed. -- Olve 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: I was under the impression that Sephardic also reffered to Jews from the MidEast area.
:Not if you want to express yourself accurately. Relatively popular (but not particularily well-oriented) Ashkenazi usage has led to this misunderstanding... -- Olve 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: I've had to clean some up again. For example, he was referring to Iraq and Tunisia as "ethnic origins", when they are countries of origin, and was claiming that all mistreatment of Jews in Arab lands happened subsequent to, and as a result of, the creation of Israel. I've also removed his link to a dubious claim that the term "Arab Jews" was "often used", since the link itself never made that claim, and removed the unsourced claim that they "exhibit affinity" towards their countries of origin. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. See Farhud; that didn't happen subsequent to the establishment of the State of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we've gone through this already? Al-Andalus, where are your sources for these claims, and from these, specific citations? El_C 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your POV on this is fascinating, but not backed up by sources.  Moreover, your latest edits are filled with POV, use completely non-encyclopedic sources, and often inject huge amounts of original research into articles that is simply not found in the sources. For example, you claim "The term was most commonly embraced where Arab cultural and national identity encompassed Jews together with Muslims and Christians", yet none of your sources actually support that conclusion.  "There is a minority of Mizrahim, however, who promote reintroducing the designation" is both ungrammatical, and unsupported by any reliable sources: this link, for example, is a Google cache of a blog, and this source is another completely non-encyclopedic source.  And even if you find some Jew who calls himself an "Arab Jew", that doesn't imply that a "minority of Mizrahim promote reintroducing the designation"; that's just a conclusion you have come to. "Discrimination and racist rhetoric by the dominant Ashkenazi establishment against Mizrahim was rampant in the early years of the state" and ""Israeli society" being a euphamism for an Ashkenazi-based society and culture." are two rather egregious examples of wildly POV statements consisting entirely of your own original research.  Inserting pictures of Yemenite Jews into the article, when it is unclear if they even should be considered Mizrahim, is another issue. In addition, your continued use of ungrammatical and often poorly spelled Englsih is problematic.  Al-Andalus, given your inability to find encyclopedic sources or quote sources accurately, and given your strong propensity for inserting highly POV and poorly written original research into articles,    I'm afraid you're going to have to bring all changes here first, so we can ensure that there is a consensus for the changes, and that they meet Wikipedia's content requirements. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your latest edits have been reverted by at least three editors. Several others have objected to them now and in the past, on the Talk: page.  And, of course, you're an editor here too. That what I mean when I say "we".  The only "sifting" that will need to be done will be to ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines (that means WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS) and then to clean them up so they're grammatical, use comprehensible English, and are properly spelled. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Properly SPELT you mean? Stick with your incomprehensible American English spelling and grammar, and I'll stick to my proper Australian English orthography a grammar. At the end of the day, this complaint of grammar and spelling you cite has always been an empty excuse merely used as a guise to kept out content you dislike. If this were truly the problem, you'd keep the content and just reword it to an English spelling and grammar you deem proper. But this you do not do. Al-Andalus 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The link you have provided is to an abstract of one paper by one author about one group of Jews, Iraqi Jews.  You haven't even read the paper yourself, yet you feel you can take the abstract of one man's opinion about an isolated instance and turn it into a broad "fact" that is true about all Mizrahi Jews - in this case, you used it to make the wholly [[WP:NOR|novel claim] that "The term was most commonly embraced where Arab cultural and national identity encompassed Jews together with Muslims and Christians".  From where do you get this "most commonly embraced" stuff? This is just one example of your consistent abuse of the sources. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph in question is about whether or not Mizrahim used the term "Arab Jew", not about whether or not they "accepted an Arab-Jewish identity".  Again, your claims must match your sources; if you have a reliable source which notes they called themselves "Arab Jews", then bring it forward. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I said it's one opinion, by one person, which you haven't even read, and which doesn't support the claims you are making.  Provide reliable sources, and quote them accurately, and we will have no issues. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your original research is fascinating, as always, and you certainly do love to use that paper by that Australian sociologist as fodder. Please provide one reliable source which states that some Jews described themselves as "Arab Jews".  One will do. Quote the source, please. Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't rejected all the sources; I've rejected a number, but others would be fine, if only you could quote them accurately.  But if you want examples of unreliable sources, I think we can both agree that a google cache of a blog doesn't count as reliable; do you agree with that? Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I haven't rejected...just" Can't you hear your own arrogance? It's not up to what you like or dislike, it's whether they comply with wikipedia regulations. Point our which specific sources don't comply with said regulations and why. Al-Andalus 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must reject certain sources, and so should you, based on policy and guidelines. For example, WP:RS "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."  Get it? Blogs are not accepted. Which other sources do you think are acceptable? Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you surround the quotes with all sorts of biased original research, as listed above, and you also selectively quote - for example, you left out "Their average income has increased over the past decade, distancing itself from the average income of Arabs, although the gap between the income of Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews remains constant."  Then you fill the article up with all sorts of other poorly written, POV original research.  It's not my job to try to tease out two or three useful words out of a 300 word edit, and it's not within Wikipedia policy to try to turn every article relating to Jews or Israel into an anti-Ashkenazi, anti-Zionist diatribe. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article itself already had a link to the study; you went and found a copy of that study from several years before that showed worse statistics, then put some incredibly biased commentary around it not found in the studies themselves. And if there are indeed, as you claim, "infinate sources available that detail the racist and discriminatory behavriour of the early Ashkenazi dominated Israeli establishment", then why do you fail to provide them? As for the appearance of Mizrahi Jews, the statements themselves are undoubtedly true, but since they're not sourced, I've removed them. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Andalus' latest edits 

message: The term "Mizrahi Jew" is a term used in English to collectively describe certain Jewish communities; e.g. Persian and Iraqi Jews and their descendents. It is not a term used only for Israelis, or only by them. See, for example,   Jayjg (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would it be correct to say that Mizrahi essentially means any non Ashkenazi Jew? Arniep 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not! Spanish and Portuguese Jews are only one example out of the many groups of Sephardi Jews who are by no means Mizraḥi Jews.... -- Olve 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other non-Ashkenazi groups not usually called Mizrahi would include Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Yemenite Jews, Romaniotes and Italkim. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long settled European Jews would clearly not be Mizrahi, but for the other groups it seems less clear. The Yemenite Jews article says they are sometimes considered Mizrahi, and who is to know that the other groups have not been referred to as Mizrahi or will not end up being considered Mizrahi. IMO the term seems as problematic as "Desi Jews". Arniep 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term used by Israelis? 

message: The discussion really shouldn't have given rise to so much passion, as it is about words and not things.  Can we all agree on the following propositions, and edit the article accordingly?
1. "Sephardim" means, etymologically, Jews descended from the Iberian peninsula, as "Sepharad" is the rabbinic (and modern) Hebrew for Spain.
2. In religious parlance, "Sephardim" is also used to cover Jews from Ottoman, Arabic-speaking and Persian-speaking backgrounds, as these use the Sephardic liturgy (or some variant of it) and follow the Shulhan Aruch (with or without the usages of the Ari); thus, though not "Spanish Jews", they are "Jews of the Spanish rite".  (The notable exception to this is the Yemenites, especially those who follow the Baladi rite.)
3. After the arrival of Spanish exiles in many of these countries, a social distinction often persisted between the newcomers and the older communities.  The Arabic-speakers were often referred to by names such as "Mustaarabim" and "Moriscos".
4. In Arabic, the term "Mashriqiyyun" (Orientals) is used to cover the people of Syria, Iraq etc. as distinct from those of North Africa (Maghrebiyyun, Westerners); and older Jewish usage often followed this convention, as in the collection of responsa "Mizrach u-Maarav".  The proper use of "Mizrahi" as as a translation of this term.
5. In Israel, many people still use "Sephardim" as a catch-all for all non-Ashkenazi Jews, on the lines of the religious usage in 2.  This usage is maintained by religious activists from these communities, and especially by SHAS.
6. Also in the religious context, there is a growing tendency to speak of "Edot ha-Mizrach" as a catch-all for Jews from African and Asian countries: siddurim purporting to contain "minhag Edot ha-Mizrach" usually reflect the Baghdadi rite and the rulings of the Ben Ish Hai.  This terminology is regarded by some as misleading, as it presumes that one size fits all and does not do justice to the variety among the communities in question.  Some prayer books speak of "Sephardim and Edot ha-Mizrach" as a single comprehensive category, without specifying any boundary between the two.
7. Many people, especially in Israel, prefer to call Jews of Asian and African origin "Mizrahi" rather than "Sephardi" on the ground that most of them are not of Spanish origin.  Others object to this on the grounds: 
:(a) that it is pedantic, as the convention of identifying them as Sephardim for religious purposes goes back for centuries (see 2); 
:(b) that it is geographically inappropriate, as the largest single community is from Morocco, which is as far to the West as you can get (see 4);
:(c) that it is demeaning, as it suggests "Oriental" in the sense given by Edward Said.
Usage varies on whether there is a two-way split between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim or a three-way split between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.
8. There is a growing tendency among secular activists from these communities (such as the Keshet, Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow) to identify as "Mizrahi" rather than "Sephardi", so as to avoid the religious overtones of the latter word, and to distinguish themselves from western Sephardim such as the Spanish and Portuguese.  They do not intend by this to suggest that the communities are all homogeneous, but only to claim that they have the same problems, being marginalized by the Israeli Ashkenazi elite and perceived as uncivilized Orientals.  It is not the business of Wikipedia to decide whether these claims are well-founded.
9. Some academics, such as Chetrit and Shohat, have claimed the description "Arab Jews".  The argument in favour of this is that Jews from Syria, Iraq and North Africa have strong historic links with Arabic language and culture.  The argument against is that Jews in Arab countries were always considered a distinct ethnic group.  (In the same way, a Jew living in England would accept the description "English Jew" but might balk at "Saxon Jew".)  The description could be justified as a translation of "Mustaarabim" (see 3) but remains politically controversial.
That way, the article would simply describe the various usages that actually exist, rather than going too far into the question of whether they are "right" or "wrong".
OK? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace proposals 

message: For non-Jewish American English speakers, there are two kinds of Jews: "Ashkenazim" (European) and "Sephardim" ("Non-European").
The relationship -- phylogenically and sociologically -- of the terms "Mizrahi" and "Sephardi" should be clarified in this article, as it is intended for a general English-language readership.
:The answer is that there is no answer (see above).  I have tried to make this as clear as the subject matter admits of in my edits to the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sephardim" 

message: I accidently pressed enter before I could write out my edit summary.  Anyway, I removed the words "if any" because it implies that there is uncertainty as to whether there are Jews that refer to themselves as Arabs. Well, some do and these sources prove it   . --Inahet 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you're wondering about my strange edit summary... 

message: Do they have a name for the Jews who've always lived in Palestine for thousands of years and never migrated? Are those Jews included with the Mizrahim?
:I think this is covered in the article. Suffice to say that these people are included in the 2,000,000 Mizrahim Jews in the modern State of Israel... Although many of that number will have migrated from other Arab countries. - 128.232.240.178 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews already living in Israel? 

message: Is this figure correct in the "Regions with significant populations" box? Surely there are many other countries with similar or greater numbers than this. 128.232.240.178 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 Mizrahi Jews in India? 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Navon belongs on this list because he was half Moroccan:
"On his father's side, he is a descendant of the Jews who were expelled from Spain and who came to Jerusalem from Turkey in 1670. On his mother's side, Navon is descended from the Ben-Atar family of Morocco, who came to Jerusalem in 1884." --Gilabrand 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, put him back. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yitzhak navon 

message: I support the existence of the article "Arab Jews", though the description is controversial.  However, I strongly oppose the moving of information (such as the list of prominent personalities) from here to there: people looking for it are far more likely to look under "Mizrahi Jews".  The Arab Jews article should be confined to the merits and demerits of the description, and the specific links with Arabic civilization. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! The Ogre 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving to Arab Jews

message: Shouldn't it be made clear much earlier that this use of Mizrachi is a late Israeli coinage, and that they were known collectively as Sephardim throughout Jewish history. 79.183.238.237 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: there seems to be significant overlap between people deemed sephardi and those deemed mizrachi. the french population figures for example have 350,000 sephardim and 400,00 mizrachim. there is no mention of ashkenazim figures. but suffice to say that there are considerably less than 750,000 jews in france (especially when you discount the considerable ashkenazi population). i think it is extremely difficult to project mizrachi population figures separate from sephardi ones as they are often used as interchangeable terms. any suggestions?68.32.127.93 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: population figures