Talk:Bukharan Jews

message: was a spanish-moroccan (tetuani) and as such was not a bukhari jew, altho he did introduce the spanish-rite(sephardi) to Bukharis who where using the (now exitinct) old Persian rite
:100% correct TruckDealer 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yosef maimoun 

message: i've done a good bit of research on central asia. a large proportion of the population is of various turkic ethnic groups.
and then there are the bukharan jews. i've just begun to learn about these people. mostly, i've listened to some bukharan jewish music over the internet.
it looks like tibet is also in this general area.
Gringo300 06:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Not to worry. The Jewish Encyclopedia cannot, in fact, claim copyright ownership of the images since they are over 100 years old. El_C 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: central asia

message: Hi watchers of this page.  Does anyone have specific cites on historical persecution of Jews or Judaism in the area of Tajikistan?  elizmr 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Info 

message: Hmm, I suppose it is not really correct to call Bukhara a "Tajik city". I know, it was populated mostly by Tajiks before and even after becoming a part of the Uzbek SSR, but at the moment this city is in Uzbekistan. Bektour 15:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The status of Bukhara 

message: I'm not sure if the TP is the place to leave praise for articles (probably not...), but I'd like to offer my thanks to the people that helped to build this article because this topic is just so wonderfully interesting and obscure!  Per the 'new policy' on the List of Jewish American businesspeople page, I'm going to have to flag the list of notables even though I'm quite sure they would hold up to scrutiny.  --WassermannNYC 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOOD JOB! 

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 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Is Milana Vayntrub a Bukharian Jew?  She has an Ashkenazi last name and identification of the Jewish group that a person belongs to is by the father (unlike the identification as a Jew, in general, which is by mother).  The article talks about a large number of Ashkenazim evacuating to Central Asia during the WWII.  Isn't it possible that her parents/grandparents did as well? Goliath74 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Ashkenazis were evacuated to Central Asia during WW2. There is no evidence provided that Vayntrub is of Bukharian transaction. Walapo (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Milana Vayntrub

message: The usage of "Bukharian" is connected with Judaized usage by the actual community but the name "Bukharan" is correct in terms of English usage. It could really go either way. You know once upon a time Mao was called Mao Tse Tung and the capital of China was Peking but then someone dialed the political correctness hotline to wherever and presto Mao became Mao Zedong and Peking is now Beijing, oh and the Indians, not to be outdone, have kept pace with this trend, renaming Calcutta to Kolkata and Bombay to Mumbai. And I remember when Romania was definitely Roumania and Vilnius was (and still is) Vilna to the Jews. In fact, this kind of "Bukharan" vs "Bukharian" debate was pretty common between Judaic and Polish editors when the former, especially those who were writing about Hasidic subjects use the Yiddish/Yiddish-sounding names still in current usage and the Polish or Ukrainian editors in Wikipedian cyberspace have linguistic puritanical apopleptic fits insisting that it is an "outrage" to write Ger and not Góra Kalwaria or Lubavitch instead of Lyubavichi etc etc etc. So it's a toss up guys, and may the best man win! IZAK 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least Burma is back where it belongs, after years of being lost at the end of the Ms.  Tomertalk 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also strikes me that this debate is not as clear-cut as it may first appear. It's actually a difficult thing in Judaism articles -- somebody could always come along and argue that the Tefillin article should be moved to Phylacteries, Yom Kippur to Day of Atonement, Sukkot to Feast of Tabernacles or maybe Sukkoth, and so on and so on. It strikes me that giving no weight at all to the terms the community uses -- assuming that to be the case -- could lead to difficulties, particularly since there's only modest coverage in the general, as distinct from academic, press. Given the evidence that the community has come down on one side, as evidenced by the names of the various community organizations, I'm not sure things are completely one sided. I would attempt to reach consensus and focus any concerns on failure to observe WP:CONSENSUS, deleting legitimate maintenance tags, and similar basic failures to observe the rules independent of the legitimacy of the POV. I'm not sure I would say that currently the basis for preferring "Bukharan" to "Bhukharian" is so patently obvious and the contrary position has so little basis that arguing otherwise (so long as one observes the rules) itself represents vandalism or an unsubstantiated position. Regardless of the name ultimately selected, it seems to me that the other variant has enough notability that it should be mentioned in the article. If there is a source for the claim that this is what they prefer to call themselves, this claim should definitely be included. Best,--Shirahadasha 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shirahadasha, as usual, I give great weight to your comments.  I would fully support moving tfilin to Phylactery, and Sukkoth to Feast of Tabernacles.  Y"K is a bit different since it is probably better known by its Hebrew name in English than it is by the Biblical "Day of Atonement".  That said, however, you seem to be laboring under the false assumption that I have advocated "giving no weight at all to the term]s[ the community uses".  I have never advocated any such thing.  Additionally, "the community" has not "come down on one side", the community has, instead created the term, in the past 15 years or so, at that (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the term that the apparent majority of 40+k Jews in Queens uses to refer to themselves does not dictate English usage overall, especially not for a community that numbers in excess of 150k...and "even more especially" for a community about whom volumes have been written using a different [and far better-established] name [one which, in fact, conforms to English language morphology... this "Bukharian" thing has but a single "precedent" elsewhere, namely "Canadian", a name which came into English via the French Canadien—no similar history exists for the neologistic "Bukharian"].  The basis for preferring "Bukharan" is firmly established in English literature, Jewish and otherwise, while the term "Bukharian" barely passes the hurdle of "neologism".  While there is no argument I can conceive of for a blanket exclusion of the spelling "Bukharian", arguing against such an exclusion is a strawman, since there has been no expressed effort by anyone, at any time, advocating said exclusion.  Please review my recommendations below.  Kol tov, Tomertalk 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that Tefillin and Sukkot need not move because these names are at least as well-used as the older scholarly English terms, and they are both found in the dictionary. (actually, I see that Sukkot shows up as "Sukkoth" or "Succoth," etc.) On the other hand, "Bukharian" was not in any dictionary I checked. If it does become accepted (i.e. in dictionaries), then we could consider it an appropriate term for use in an English work. Until that point, one might even say it is original research to use it. --Eliyak T·C 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Bukharans were isolated perhaps, but isolation doesn't make them unknown.  In English they are called "Bukharan Jews" far more frequently than "Bukharian Jews", as I have demonstrated above.  You're not being "mean", you're being silly, wrong, and not just a little bit snotty.  Tomertalk 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an article about the community, it is not "their page".  Nor is it "your page".  You keep talking and saying the same things over and over, and still have not addressed the issue.  Instead you prefer to re-cast the issue as "you hate us" rubbish, and prattling on irrelevantly about the fact that you are, yourself, Bukhar[i]an, and call yourself "Bukharian".  As I have told you before, the article isn't written from your perspective, nor are you a reliable citable source, so whatever you say about the subject may be interesting but it is not relevant according to Wikipedia's editorial policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  Your behavior, in evading your block is also a violation of Wikipedia policies, and your insults against other editors, while evading your block, are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIV.  Belligerantly insisting on inserting your preferred spelling into this and other articles is disruptive and a failure to abide by consensus (minus one, obviously).  Your practice of editing using multiple accounts, especially to back yourself up, or to evade your blocks, is a violation of WP:SOCK.  In short, your behavior is grounds for increasingly lengthy blocks, which is what's going to happen pretty soon if you don't straighten up.  Nowhere has anyone said you or anyone else is "stupid" to say "Bukharian".  What has been said, and demonstrated, is that over 80% of citable reliable English sources use "Bukharan", NOT "Bukharian", and therefore, since we report, not invent, Wikipedia uses "Bukharan".  As for calling you "wrong", as you are well aware, I was saying that your views on what Eliyak should do to figure out how Wikipedia should work are wrong.  Your views are completely opposite Wikipedia's editorial policy.  If you want to change policy, go to the policy pages and change them.  We'll see how long the people who edit those pages put up with your shenanigans.  Tomertalk 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, this is not "LeeMulod333's report on the status of [insert subject here]".  If you want to write an article and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then you'll become a citable source.  As for your assertion that "we can just use the cite [sic] as a source", clearly we can use it as a source, but it certainly doesn't have "all the information we need", it only contains "all the information you think you need".  As I have said previously, and am on the verge of getting fed up saying, nobody has said "nobody says Bukharian".  Picking a source that uses "Bukharian" and saying "this source [that agrees with me] proves that I'm right" is so intellectually dishonest and logically flawed, that it's astonishing you could seriously believe such silliness yourself, much less expect that other people might find your argument to be sound.  Tomertalk 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lemme check.  Nope, you're wrong.  I just looked it up.  None of the definitions in the dictionary for "respect" mention "agreeing with LeeMulod333's opinions".  Meanwhile, you have completely ignored everything of substance in what I have said.  Again.  Tomertalk 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a name?

message: Despite apparent misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise, I would like to clarify ONCE AGAIN, that I have never advocated removing mention of "Bukharian" from the article.
My proposal consists of several parts and applies to the article as a whole in part, and to the "Name and language" section of the article in greater part.
#Leave the article at Bukharan Jews for the reasons I've listed above.
#Except in the names of organizations or in quotations where "Bukharian" is used in the name of the organizations or the term "Bukharian[s]" is used in a quotation, the name used in the article should consistently be "Bukharan[s]".  ("Bukharan", for what it's worth, was the spelling used when the article was started.)
#Split the Name and language section into two.  The two are pretty unrelated, and become moreso if the section is expanded.  The "language" part could theoretically even be dropped, since it is already the subject of a separate article, and is mentioned elsewhere (in this article) prominently.
#Expand the new Name section to include a complete discussion of variant names, common and (within the bounds of notability) uncommon.
Thoughts?  Tomertalk 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to go for a while.  I will try to be back later tonight to work on this.  Please stop changing everything to "Bukharian".  Instead, work on a good way of wording the "Name" section.  Starting with, stop insistently reinserting the incorrect assertion that the name "Bukharian" was invented by European explorers.  The name they "invented" was "Bukharan", not "Bukharian".  Also, please stop willy-nilly removing citation requests.  I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, but you are constantly making edits that are in conflict with a number of core Wikipedia policies.  Thanks, and I look forward to working with you to improve the article.  Tomertalk 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What you are doing is verging on vandalism.  You need to read and understand WP:NOR, since your actions in the article and your statements here on the talk page, clearly indicate that you do not understand the policy.  Tomertalk 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support Tomer's position/s here. Thank you, IZAK 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone know this kid's rabbi's number?  Some authority figure in his life needs to clarify a few things for him.  Tomertalk 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The name of the city comes from Old Sogdian, not from a section of the Qur'an.  I don't need to visit the community to learn Wikipedia policy.  Saying "Bukharan is just retarded", nothing more than your personal opinion, is a further violation on your part, of WP:CIV, and, without citation, also of WP:NOR.  A lot of "us people" think Bukharan is the correct spelling because, with the exception of what some Bukharan Jews in New York write, that's what practically everything written about the community, in English, uses.  This is what we call reliable sources.  These can be cited.  This has nothing to do with Bukhar[i]an culture.  Wikipedia is not a "cultural festival", it's an encyclopedia.  Tomertalk 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The correct English name has nothing to do with what a group calls itself. The ancient Jews did not call themselves Israelites or Hebrews. Should we call them "B'nei Yisra'el" or "Ivrim" on Wikipedia, or any other publication for the English-speaking public? No. English usage is determined by certain rules, and by common usage. In this case, the term "Bukharian" is not found in dictionaries of the English language. --Eliyak T·C 20:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mere minutes after being blocked, we have a brand new user, with zero edits, to take LeeMulod333's  side and make exact-same Undo-reverts as s/he did? Whether it is LeeMulod333 or someone s/he recruited, this conduct is not allowed. Please edit courteously. El_C 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely inappropriate to describe this as a matter of taking "sides".  LeeMulod333's edits, as well as hir edits as LeeMulod and as various anonymous IP addresses, violate core Wikipedia policies.  If you are taking LeeMulod333's "side", you are, yourself, on incredibly shaky ground--especially in light of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, if you are actually LeeMulod333 with a dress on...something that can be checked, and in Lee's case, given hir editing "style", and past history, probably eventually will be.  Tomertalk 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for "name" section 

message: I have created the new :Category:Bukharan Jews to have a central place where articles and topics related to the subject of Bukharan Jews can be found. If there are any articles I missed please add them into this category. Thanks, IZAK 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Bukharan Jews

message: Am I the only one who is mystified by the very Russian-sounding names of such supposèdly Bukharan Jews as Abramoff, Leviev, Moussaieff, Alazarov, etc?  Are these people actually Bukharans with Russified surnames?  Or are they actually Ashkenazim who happened to have ambled into Bukhara over the past century (as their surnames seem to indicate)?  Does anyone know?  Tomertalk 09:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the question is begged, once they were no longer under the yoke of "russification", why did they keep these names?  Tomertalk 07:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames of allegèdly Bukhar[i]an Jews 

message: The website of photographer Joan Roth is being used as a source for the assertion that the Bukharans are Jews whose ancestors did not return from the Babylonian captivity.  I humbly submit that while Joan Roth may be an expert photographer, she is not an expert historian.  If someone wants to use her as a history source, email her (I'd do it myself, but I don't have time presently) at JoanLRoth@aol.com, and ask her for her sources for her assertion.  If those sources are found to be sound historically, then they can be used as reliable sources.  In the meanwhile, notice that the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly indicates that no history of the community is reliably known prior to less than a millennium ago.  Tomertalk 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, so cite them.  Joan Roth is not a reliable source for ancient Bukharan history.  Tomertalk 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One little point I want to make: the Assyrian captivity was in the 8th century BCE; the Babylonian captivity was in the 6th, so please, anyone, correct the article (I already did, but it was lost in the next revert). SamEV (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Joan Roth is being cited here as a historian verifying that the Bukharans are descended from Jews who did not return from the Babylonian captivity, not as an expert on spelling.  If it was your desire that she be used as a spelling expert, your basis for claim that she is a reliable source is even flimsier.  Your grandfather, while he may be a great guy, is, as far as you're presenting him, also not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia.  As for getting sick of your persistent vandalism and POV-pushing, I am...but I am being forced to stay here--by you.  I am here to write an encyclopedia, according to Wikipedia policies, and as long as you insist on violating those policies, I will have to go around behind you cleaning up your messes.  It's sad, but a necessary function of WP editors.  Hopefully you will eventually grow out of it and become a constructive editor.  Tomertalk 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Joan Roth as a source for Bukharan history 

message: How, in what way? SamEV 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee, I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. It may be that your characterization of the writers is the absolute truth. I'm only saying that in just the first sentence, we should use the article's title, per the WP:MOS. After that, I'm all for using Bukharian, and edited the article to that effect. Even the infobox has Bukharian first. It's a good compromise, Lee; take it. It's not as if you can point to any violation of policy in that first sentence: quite the opposite! You basicallly won, why can't you recognize it? SamEV 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you mean Bukharian is more common, Lee? 

message: I suppose I could have explained it better, Lee. I think the first sentence is insufficient. Readers will wonder why the article doesn't use the name in the article's title. It gives the feeling that something is not quite right. So I think we should be upfront and let them know that it's a conscious decision that the editors made, and not some kind of mistake. What do you think? SamEV (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing readers 

message: It appears to be a certain tendency here by some members of cheerleading their local "heroes", such as school athletes, storekeepers,"community leaders" etc... Even if some of them have an article on Wiki, its writen like an essay or a resume rather than NPOV info.. Stop cheerleading, its cheapen important contribution of real famous people of the Bucharian community as a whole... 24.45.31.38 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notabiliy 

message: The article is currently giving a false information. The Citation being used on the page   says "Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab had forbidden the construction of new synagogues and the destruction of old ones that were existed in pre-Islamic period. There was even a case when Caliph Umar had ordered to destroy a mosque, which was built illegally on Jewish land", So, if I am getting this right, he forbade the construction of new ones as well as forbade the destruction of pre-Islamic ones. 
While, on the wiki page it says "..as well as forcing the destruction of those that existed in the pre-Islamic period...", it contradicts the citation used. Either change the citation to back up that claim, or that section needs to be re-edited. I will edit that part to reflect it properly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.27.61 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliph Omar's law on Synagogue 

message: I added some texts on Magoki Attoron, its a place where Muslims and Jews used to pray together before the first Synagogue was constructed in 1620, used the same citation used fore on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.27.61 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Magoki Attoron 

message: The title of this page is "Bukharan Jews", so the article will discuss "Bukharan Jews", not "Bukharian Jews". If you want to get the article moved to another name, you can certainly try to do so, but until then the article has to reflect its title. Also, removing reliable sources that say "Bukharan Jews" is really inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ignoring; the article notes that both terms are used. Nonetheless, it appears that the more common (and academic) usage is "Bukharan Jews", despite the name of the Bukharian Jewish Congress. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You can start a discussion on whether or not it should be moved. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bukharan vs. Bukharian again 

message: Could someone with the information please insert a section on how (if it does) Bukharan Judaism differs from other strands of Judaism, e.g., in terms of ritual or interpretation?  --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from other strands of Judaism

message: Many of the sources used for this article seem unreliable, including this one: Ehrlich, M. Avrum. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture ABL-CIO, October 2008, , p. 84..</br>
The article referred to in that tertiary source (itself of questionable reliability, as authors not authoritative scholars on their respective topics would appear to be included) was written by Amotz Asa-El, not Avrum. Asa-El is the author of a book on the lost tribes that seems unreliably published (not academic, at any rate), found here . The Wall St. Journal review refers to it as a "coffee table book".</br>
The claim regarding speculation on the name contradicts two threads of the historical narrative provided in another source, which seems more reliable. There would seem to be no reliable source connecting Bukharan Jews to lost tribes lore other than the unreliably published statement relating to speculation on a name.</br>
I'll revise the paragraph in question accordingly soon.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I've fully protected this indefinitely (which means it can be lifted once consensus is achieved here ,whether it by half an hour or three months. I encourage folks to ask around for other opinions and support their views with sources. Any admin is welcome to undo my protect if they come across the page and this has been resolved and I'm not around or forget....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  full protection Comment 

message: ModernSportsEra (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Or I think it is done, at least. I presume you were talking about the protection template? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing template 

message: There has been some edit warring regarding the inclusion of Ashkenazi Jews residing in Central Asia under this article, with a position adopting an ethnicity based definition of Bukharan Jewery used to exclude discussion of Ashkenazi immigrants from Russia/Soviet ea starting in the 19th century.</br>
As a non-Jew observer, this was all news to me, and since there was an RS being used that counted both together in demographics information pertaining simply to Jews in Central Asia along with the definition in the lead pertaining to Jews from Central Asia who speak Bukhori, it wasn't clear to me that immigrants that learned to speak Bokhori, for example, would be excluded.</br>
At any rate, that source has been misrepresented regarding another statement that was addressed in a first RS/N thread, and the demographics statement can be replaced with information from the NYT article and a Guardian article that pertain specifically to ethnic Bukharan Jews. </br>
the following are passages from other sources I encountered relating to this topic.
Bukhara
At the onset of the Soviet rule a network of secular government schools was established for the Bukharan community; the first teachers in these schools were Ashkenazi Jews, who did not know the language of the Bukharan Jews, and the language of instruction in these schools was Hebrew(emphasis added). From 1923, however, Judeo-Tajik became the language of instruction at schools. In 1921 a teachers' seminary was opened in Tashkent, and in 1925 a newspaper entitledRöshnoyi began to appear in this language (its name was changed to Bayroqi Miḥnat in 1930). In 1929 the alphabet of Judeo-Tajik was changed from Hebrew to Latin. A literary journal entitled Ḥayot-i Miḥnati began to appear in the early 1930s, and several years later a Judeo-Bukharan language theater was established in Samarkand, as well as a "section" of Judeo-Bukharan writers. In the 1930s Tashkent became the center of book publishing in Judeo-Tajik. Numerous books were issued in this language, especially propaganda works and textbooks, but also original literary creations.
The wave of imprisonments of 1936–38 dealt a harsh blow to cultural activity. In 1938–39 the newspapers were closed down, theatrical activity was terminated and in 1940 the publication of Judeo-Tajik books as well as the functioning of the Judeo-Bukharan schools was discontinued. The elimination of Judeo-Bukharan culture greatly accelerated the processes of assimilation with the community. In the large cities of Central Asia, where the Bukharan Jewish population is mainly concentrated, thirty years after the elimination of the community's cultural life and particularly its network of schools, the Judeo-Tajik language was the major means of communication in all areas of life only among those aged 55–60 or more. For most middle-aged Jews the cultural language is Russian, while the language of the community is spoken in the home. The younger generation often prefers Russian to the language of the community even in daily domestic usage. As for the children – some of them do not understand the language at all, and some of them understand but cannot speak it. Thus, the same intensive process of linguistic assimilation that occurred in the Ashkenazi community of the Soviet Union in the late 1920s–early 1930s is occurring, one generation later, within this community(emphasis added).
====Antipathy?====
Bukharian Rabbi Fights To Keep Post
Last April, the community’s Bet Efraim Central Synagogue informed Yehoshua his contract would not be renewed and he was subsequently ousted from the Bukharian Jewish Congress.
A ruling by five Ashkenazi rabbis of the Queens Beit Din, or rabbinical court, a few months earlier found that Yehoshua had violated laws related to conversions. This July, the same beit din issued a second ruling, distributed among the Bukharian community in a 12-page booklet printed in English and in Russian, cataloging the “tremendous lies and fabrications” Yehoshua is alleged to have committed in what the rabbis portrayed as an elaborate and “cunning” attempt to clear his name.
Yehoshua blamed three groups for his recent travails: a younger generation of Bukharian rabbis who reject the notion of a chief rabbi; another rabbinic group, educated at American yeshivas, who want the Bukharian rabbinate to move in a more strict, Ashkenazi-style Orthodox direction, and a power struggle at the Bukharian Jewish Community Center, a new building that almost went bankrupt in 2006 before it was bailed out by billionaire diamond dealer Lev Leviev and Queens real estate developer Simcha Alishaev.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations between Bukharan and Ashkenazi Jews... 

message: Bukharian Rabbi Fights To Keep Post
Last April, the community’s Bet Efraim Central Synagogue informed Yehoshua his contract would not be renewed and he was subsequently ousted from the Bukharian Jewish Congress.
A ruling by five Ashkenazi rabbis of the Queens Beit Din, or rabbinical court, a few months earlier found that Yehoshua had violated laws related to conversions. This July, the same beit din issued a second ruling, distributed among the Bukharian community in a 12-page booklet printed in English and in Russian, cataloging the “tremendous lies and fabrications” Yehoshua is alleged to have committed in what the rabbis portrayed as an elaborate and “cunning” attempt to clear his name.
Yehoshua blamed three groups for his recent travails: a younger generation of Bukharian rabbis who reject the notion of a chief rabbi; another rabbinic group, educated at American yeshivas, who want the Bukharian rabbinate to move in a more strict, Ashkenazi-style Orthodox direction, and a power struggle at the Bukharian Jewish Community Center, a new building that almost went bankrupt in 2006 before it was bailed out by billionaire diamond dealer Lev Leviev and Queens real estate developer Simcha Alishaev.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Antipathy?

message: The lack of input here would seem to indicate that there is generally support for treating Bukharan Jews as an ethnic group, exclusive of Ashkenazi immigrants to Central Asia. It almost seems irrelevant insofar as both groups would seem to have basically left the area. Meanwhile, the language Bukhori appears to have been out of use--officially--since the Soviet era.
According to the following three sources posted by CFS above, much of the text in the article is incorrect.
#Uzbekistan: Bukhara's fading Jewish heritagetold me about Bukhara's Jewish community. The synagogue dates from the 16th century and is still in use, although the number of worshippers has declined dramatically over the years. There are only around 300 left in the city, and some of those are about to leave.
#The Silk Road Leads to QueensFor more than 2,000 years, Central Asia was home to the Bukharians, one of the most isolated Jewish communities in the world, who evolved a unique language, blending Farsi and Hebrew, that scholars call Judeo-Persian and locals call Bukhori.Neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi (the two major groups of Diaspora Jews), the Bukharians say that their lineage goes directly back to the Babylonian captivity(emphasis added), before 500 B.C.The Bukharians' Jewish identity was always preserved in the kitchen. "Even though we were in exile from Jerusalem, we observed kashruth," said Isak Masturov, another owner of Cheburechnaya. "We could not go to restaurants, so we had to learn to cook for our own community.In two decades, more than 90 percent of the 120,000 Bukharians have left Central Asia for Israel or the United States, said Dr. Sam Kliger of the Research Institute for New Americans.(emphasis added)   
#Immigrants Bring Dreams and Combs to N.Y. ShopAlong with the 50,000 or so in the New York area, there are an estimated 100,000 Bukharians in Israel, with a few thousand more in Austria, France, England, Australia and Argentina. Only about 2,000 are left in Central Asia.The Bukharians lived in the cities along the Silk Road for hundreds of years, practicing their own, isolated form of Judaism(emphasis added) and speaking a Tajik or Farsi dialect. As a result of continuous repression and persecution mixed with occasional periods of free movement, they lost touch with many of their religious roots(emphasis added).According to lore, a rabbi from Morocco went to Bukhara, in what is now Uzbekistan, in the 18th century and instigated a Sephardic religious revival. "He changed it from the Persian religious tradition to the Sephardic tradition, but we are not Sephardic Jews," Perkhasov said.The Bukharians are proud of their Jewish heritage(emphasis added), if not Orthodox in their observance -- Saturday, the Sabbath, is one of the shop's busiest days. Dmitri Izkhakov, who also works at Rafael Barber Shop, indicated clearly that he immigrated because he is Jewish. He arrived in New York in April 2002, because "there are now 15 [Jewish] families left in Samarkand. There were 10,000 families, and now the synagogue is closing because there is no minyan," he said, referring to the 10 adult males needed to conduct prayer services.(emphasis added)
That is to say, with respect to demographics and religion, the following statements are made. 
#"...only around 300 left in the city (Bukhara), and some of those are about to leave."
#"more than 90 percent of the 120,000 Bukharians have left Central Asia"
#"Only about 2,000 are left in Central Asia."
#"there are now 15 [Jewish] families left in Samarkand"
#there is no mention of a tradition relating to "lost tribes", only "Babylonian captivity"
#There are statements to the effect that religious traditions were lost, and a new teaching introduced and adopted. There is no mention of "Israelite identity", only "Jewish heritage". 
#Regarding the statement, "for hundreds of years, practicing their own, isolated form of Judaism", it is not clear to me to which period that refers, but I assume it refers to the period after the introduction o Sephardi practices.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on demographics, religion, culture, "Jewish heritage"  

message: What exactly is the source on "Christianity (predominantly due to proselytism among those who migrated to Israel, Russia, and the United States)"? The Bukharian communities in Israel and the US (can't speak for Russia) are extremely tight knit and if a member of the community decided to convert to Christianity and stop practicing Judaism completely they would most likely be disowned by the community. There are probably way more Jews with Ashkenazi ancestry that converted to Christianity over the years than Bukharians and yet Christianity isn't listed a religion on their page. I also feel like the inclusion of Islam is incorrect because the chala were Jews who were forced to convert to Islam but still practiced many Jewish customs amongst themselves, and those who decided to wholeheartedly adopt Islam and leave Judaism behind and their descendants are no longer considered Bukharian today.
Hondol (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section