Talk:Bukharan Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Jewish children with their teacher in Samarkand, before 1915. 'Nuff said. Etz Haim 20:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jewish children with their teacher in Samarkand, before 1915. 'Nuff said. Etz Haim 20:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] 'return' to israel

I have changed the section of the article that claim bukarian jews "returned" to israel, because one can not return to a place they have never been. This is an encyclopedia not an arena to voice ones particular convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.120.99 (talk · contribs) 14:42, April 18, 2007 UTC (diff)

Anyone who reverts you is doing Wikipedia a service. You are correct: this is an encyclopedia, not an arena to voice one's particular convictions. Therefore, you should refrain from making the kind of edits you're espousing here. Tomertalk 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be a return if they actually have some Jewish/Israelitic ancestry. How do you know for sure that they don't? It's likely distant and hard to detect genetically, but do you have data that says they don't have it? I'm not asserting that they do, by the way, only challenging your certainty. Don't just go by their being Turkic Asians. SamEV 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
When did they become Turkic? First off, they're Jews. Second off, their vernacular, Bukhori, is a form of Persian/Tajik. Third off their liturgical language is Hebrew. How does any of this make them "Turkic"? Tomertalk 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I know about Jewish Central Asians, they group genetically with their neighbors, most of whom are Turkic. If you have contrary info please post me a link. SamEV 17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Jewish Central Asians"? The Bukharans are called Bukharans after Bukhara, but they range from Kazakhstan in the north, to India in the south. Historically and linguistically, they are an outlier of Persian Jewry, which is not Turkic. I think you are erroneously lumping them together with the Krymchaks and Karaims. "From what you know" I can't speak to. If you have information supporting your position, please post me a link. Thanks, Tomertalk 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
So you state flat out that they do not cluster genetically (and physically, I might add) with their Turkic neighbors, is that it? SamEV 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What I'm stating "flat out" is that you need to bring forth sources to support your assertion that the Bukharans cluster genetically (and physicially, I might add) with their Turkic neighbors. There is no study, of which I'm aware, that makes this indication. If you have a source, bring it, otherwise it's OR. That's it. Tomertalk 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


In any case, if you actually look at the edit in question (diff), there's nothing wrong with it. As many problems as are caused by at least one of the people editing from that IP address, this is quite minor. In fact, I rather suspect that the reason nothing was said about the edit or the comment here at the time, was because the article actually reads better with that edit, despite the obnoxious rationale posted here on the talkpage. Kol tov, Tomertalk 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor eh? Glad you see it that way. As for me, I don't have to source "return," because it's neither my edit, nor is it any more in the article. It was just a passing challenge of his assumption that "return" cannot possibly apply Bukharan Jews and which I stated here, in the talk page. And as for my belief that they cluster with their neighbors, take a look at http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html. Several experts explain that the Y-chromosomes, especially, of Jewish populations show a lot of diversity and resemble their neighbors'. But guess what, I didn't put that in the article, so it is not OR, nor would it be if I HAD put it in. Goodday. SamEV 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to source "return", only your assertion that the Bukharans "cluster ... with" their Turkic neighbors. It was actually a somewhat disingenuous challenge, since you apparently are unaware that the Bukharans are Tajik (an Iranic language) speakers, and that the only reason Samarqand and Bukhara are included in the Uzbek (a Turkic people) Republic is because of the anti-Tajik propensities of the Soviets. Tomertalk 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tomer, it so happens that language does not correlate completely with genetics. Look at English, for instance. It began as the language of a northern European people and is now spoken by all races. I also knew that various Turkic peoples have adopted, guess what? Persian dialects. Among these peoples are the rulers of the Delhi Sultanate in the Middle Ages. As for the Tajiks more specifically, please read this:
"The Tajiks were Persian-speaking Turks who had migrated from Turkish homelands. Their contribution to the building of the early Muslim state at Delhi was very substantial, and not only did they monopolize the higher posts in the Delhi secretariat, but also they dominated the literary and intellectual life."[1]
Persianized Turks are not few, Tomer. SamEV 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought everything I learned today was going to be at work. I was wrong. Thanks. Tomertalk 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy man. SamEV 01:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] central asia

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)

Could it be that Jewish migration was caused by an opportunity of better living standards rather than (or as well as-?) "abrupt growth of nationalism, chauvinism and xenophobia" and "rapid revival of Islamic culture" in Uzbekistan? Especially when the destination countries considered - USA and Israel, which are far from Uzbekistan, but have considerably higher living standards. This part of the article sounds biased, anti-Uzbek and anti-Islamic. I am replacing "rapid revival of Islamic culture" with "advent of Islamic fundamentalism" myself, which is also consistent with History of Uzbekistan article and at least keeps mainstream Islamic culture out of this business. Filanca 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I do share what you said. Especially if one is talking about a country with many other minorities living (Arabs, Azeris, Kazakhs, Koreans, Russians, Tatars, Tajiks, so on).--Sahib-qiron (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I might be wrong, and I´m not an expert on the topic, but I noticed there is a C mark for copyright on most of the pictures on the Bukhara Jews. Although I really appreciate the opportunity to see those, it seems to me to go against Wikipedia rules of licensing photos... I can see they are quite old and shouldn´t be covered ny copyright laws in most countries... but to see that "C" sign is not at all pleasent in the context of wikipedia. Kurogawa.

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)

[edit] Request for Info

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)

I can't find any cites on the topic but I am a Bukharian Jew from Tajikistan and I could tell you how Jews were persecuted in all of Central Asia. Most Bukharians were in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. They were treated like shit there. Up until the very early 1900s, Jews were forced to convert by the Muslims or they would die. My maternal grandmother, who is from Samarkand, Uzbekistan, told be that the Muslims made the Jews convert and not the Christians, which is not fair. My paternal grandmother's grandmother had parents who were killed when she was very young because they refused to convert to Islam. It was hard for a Jew to be successful in Central Asia, but many of them were. For Kazakhstan, I'm not sure about whether that country was very anti-semitic. My great-grandmother was from Turkistan, Kazakhstan and my grandmother studied and lived their for years and liked it. She was pissed of when "Borat" came out because it showed how uncivilized and anti-semitic Kazakhstan is. She said that Kazkahstan was very civilized and not anti-semitic like the rest of the Central Asian countries. In other countries, not all Jews went to good colleges or colleges at all. When they took the test to get into a college, alot of them were rejected despite their good grades simply because they were Jews. So a Jew had to be 100 times smarter than any Muslim or Christian to go to college. I am so glad that I was born to a family where most people had went to college, including my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc, despite the prejudice. In 1992, when I was one, my whole family moved to Queens, New York and some to Israel. We and alot of other Bukharian Jews left because of the persecution the Jews faced for 2000 years in those horrible lands and also because there was war during the collapse of the Soviet Union. We left with nothing but the cloth on our back, left the perseuction in Central Asia, and never looked back. Now Central Asians are begging for the Jews to come back because without the Jews, they have nothing and no economy at all. But we had enough of their prejudice and we are staying in the the United States and Israel. We are back with the Jewish world after 2000 years of being cut off from the and we make a successful living as lawyers, doctors, businesspeople, etc, in a short period of time.

[edit] The status of Bukhara

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)

Sarit Hadad is a Gorsky Mountain jew NOT A BUKHARIAN

[edit] GOOD JOB!

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)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


SARIT HADAD IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT BUKHARI! SHES KAVKAZI(GORSKY) YO SHMO, Im going to remove her

[edit] References

i find the opening comments to dress behaviour and smell offensive and dare i say anti semitic

[edit] "Bukharan" vs "Bukharian"

Fully cognizant of the fact that a number of sources use the term "Bukharian", I have gone ahead and moved the article back to its original title, "Bukharan Jews", and accordingly fixed all relevant references in the article to match. A number of Bukharan sources use the term "Bukharian", but they do so not through "authority on proper English usage", but rather through ignorance of "proper English usage". The proper name among the Bukharim is "Bukhari", not "Bukharian", and I think the "-an" is being mistakenly added onto that.

I'm not seeking to cast aspersions against those editors whose English is less than exemplary for their preference, since these editors have demonstrated, by and large, that they are part of the community in question, simply saying that because their English is less than exemplary, perhaps they should acquiesce to editors whose English is more than exemplary.

In English, the name of this community is "Bukharan", based on the name of the city "Bukhara". There is not, nor has there ever been, in English nor in any other language, a realm of "Bukharia" which would precipitate the invention of the ethnonym "Bukharian". Were there some historical "Bukharia", then "Bukharian" would not only be natural, but normal. But there is no such thing.

There has been a great deal of back and forth on the "proper spelling" in the article over the years, and it has, happily, gone by without any obvious acrimony. This is good, but ultimately some standard must be accepted. I rest not only on a thorough googlesearch, which indicates in excess of a 40:1 preference for "Bukharan" over "Bukharian", but also on a great many primary sources—none of which use "Bukharian", all of which use "Bukharan".

Therefore, if you feel "Bukharian" is "properer" than "Bukharan", please, I beg you, bring up your objections here on the talk page, along with your authoritative sources, rather than going into the article and "correcting", wrongly, in my clearly-stated view, "Bukharan". The constant back-and-forth of the name leads to confusion for outside readers far more than it does even for those of us who know something of the subject.

Kindest regards, Tomertalk 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of you people don't know what you're talking about. It is Bukharian Jew. I am one so I should know. I had never referred to myself as a Bukharan Jew. I never even heard of that. Please revise this. Just go to the webiste bjew.com. It has the correct spelling. And if any of you guys have questions about Bukharian Jews, just ask me. I'll be more than happy to answer them for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.161 (talk • contribs) 10:10 UTC, October 27, 2007 who may or may not be LeeMulod333 (talk · contribs).
Respectfully, most of us do know what we're talking about. The name for this community, in English sources (the only factor of relevance in this discussion), is "Bukharan Jews", not "Bukharian". Whatever name some Bukharan Jews who have immigrated to English-speaking countries may have adopted for themselves does not dictate overall English usage. While Googlesearches are not always authoritative, in this case some Googlesearches are indicative of popular usage.
+"Bukharan Jews" -"Bukharian Jews": Use of "Bukharan Jews" and not "Bukhiaran Jews" including Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — ~11,900 hits.
+"Bukharian Jews" -"Bukharan Jews": Use of "Bukharian Jews" and not "Bukharan Jews" including Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — 761 hits.
Preference for "Bukharan" including Wikipedia: ~94%
+"Bukharan Jews" -wikipedia -"Bukhiaran Jews": Use of "Bukharan Jews" and not "Bukharian Jews" outside Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — ~9,550 hits.
+"Bukharian Jews" -wikipedia -"Bukharan Jews": Use of "Bukharian Jews" and not "Bukharan Jews" outside Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — 184 hits.
Preference for "Bukharan" outside Wikipedia: ~98%
+"Bukharan Jews" OR "Bukharian Jews": Use of "Bukharian Jews" OR "Bukharan Jews" including Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — ~19,200 hits.
+("Bukharan Jews" OR "Bukharian Jews") -wikipedia: Use of "Bukharian Jews" OR "Bukharan Jews" outside Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — ~14,900 hits.
Preference for "Bukharan" outside Wikipedia: not a relevant factor in this search
The main interest in this search is to demonstrate the number of non-Wikipedia hits a google search produces. Result: ~78% of mention of this community has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
+"Bukharan Jews" +"Bukharian Jews": Use of "Bukharian Jews" AND "Bukharan Jews" including Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — 687 hits.
+"Bukharan Jews" +"Bukharian Jews" -wikipedia: Use of "Bukharian Jews" AND "Bukharan Jews" outside Wikipedia, mirrors, and pages which make reference to Wikipedia — 183 hits.
Preference for "Bukharan" outside Wikipedia: not a relevant factor in this search.
Preference for mention of both names outside Wikipedia: ~79% (uninteresting, in any event, since nobody here has advocated expunging mention of the term "Bukharian" from Wikipedia)
Simple analysis of these searches shows a preference of over 10 to 1 for "Bukharan". Unless you can demonstrate that "Bukharian" is preferred in a majority of reliable English language sources, you are violating not only WP:UE, but your justification for your preferred spelling constitutes an obvious violation of WP:NOR. I am, meanwhile, undoing your changes, and would, in light of what I've said here, urge you to desist from further attempts to insert your personal views into the article.
I should point out, incidentally, that nothing you've said in your above remarks comes close to fulfilling any part of my request in my paragraph 4 above ("Therefore, if you feel..."). Please review WP:RS and WP:CON. Kol tov, Tomertalk 03:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I would be remiss to neglect to mention that searches for books on Amazon.com also indicate a clear preference for "Bukharan Jews" over "Bukharian Jews", and a set of google searches analogous to those cited above for "Bukharan Jews" vs. "Bukharian Jews" gives statistically similar results for "Bukharan Quarter" over "Bukharian Quarter". Tomertalk 03:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Something of a small aside to this situation, is the mention of the appellation "Bukhari Jews", which Google and Amazon searches alike show to be an almost non-existant variant. I have altered the order and wording of the lead to reflect this. Tomertalk 04:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... "Bukharian" certainly seems preferred in Forest Hills. At the least this deserves a footnote on usage.--Pharos 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That, however, does not get at the core of this discussion. Tomertalk 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking further, it appears the overwhelming consensus of the English-speaking community (about one-third of the total population) prefers "Bukharian" — including every institution, every newspaper, every official body; this gets into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) territory. Who cares if it's "not correct"? Is Israélien, the French word for Israeli, also "not correct" — and if it was, would it matter on the French Wikipedia? Surely the publications of community groups count as reliable sources just as much as articles by "outsider" historians — at least on some mundane thing like this which is not exactly an active issue of academic dispute.--Pharos 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Israélien is a (dare I say, disingenuous) strawman. The subject at hand is not what Bukharan Jews who in the past 15 years have made English their new (not native) language call themselves, but rather what the community is called in English sources that deal with the community, if I might be so bold, preceding their arrival. When referring to themselves traditionally in relationship to other Jewish communities, they don't call themselves Tajik Jews or Uzbek Jews, nor Bukharian Jews, they call themselves "Bukhori"—a factor that may very well have played a significant rôle in how they have come to refer to themselves in English. This does not change, nor even substantially effect, English usage, as demonstrated by a review of English books written about the community, even in the time since their arrival in large numbers in the English-speaking world. That said, I find myself mildly irritated by the fact that I have to once again correct the apparently erroneous assertion that I have advocated expunging the term "Bukharian" from Wikipedia or anywhence else.
I never said that I thought you advocated expunging the term "Bukharian". When I say I think it deserves a footnote on usage, I mean exactly that: that no matter what title this article is under, it would be helpful to have a little footnote explaing the different circumstances under which "Bukharan" and "Bukharian" are used (one by academics, one by Anglophone members of the ethnic community). We should give both forms in the intro, but any more detail on this mundane issue should just go in a footnote, like the footnote #2 at Seung-Hui Cho. Israélien is indeed a bad analogy; my French etymlogy is a bit rusty and I was thinking it came directly from Yisraeli (which it does not) — the point was that it shouldn't matter what we personally consider "good" word construction or not; it is not helpful to stop WP:AGF ("dare I say, disingenuous") just because I make a silly mistake, though. Anyway, if you're interested my preference is still that we should defer to the form used by the community itself per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) (and by the way, in ordinary conversation I'm more likely to say "Bukharan" myself; I only came to this conclusion after researching the widespread use of "Bukharian" by community institutions).--Pharos 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I must also, apparently, point out the fact that the POV-pushing insertion of "Bukharian" everywhere in the article by the one editor who seems hell-bent on forcing this term on Wikipedia and, by extension, the English-speaking world, is not only disruptive, but in many cases completely fallacious. For example, even if we accept, for sake of argument, that 1/3 of the community calls itself "Bukharian" (quite a stretch), there is no evidence whatsoever to support the editor-in-question's assertion that "The term "Bukharian" was coined by European travelers who visited Central Asia around the 16th century."—the term coined by European travelers was, without equivocation, "Bukharan", not "Bukharian". Tomertalk 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The correct term is Bukharan. It appears this way in such encyclopedias as the Britannica, the Encyclopedia Judaica and the Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel, which are all reputable sources. Many English speakers do say "Bukharian," which may be technically wrong, but should be mentioned because it so common.--Gilabrand 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely organizations like the World Congress of Bukharian Jews, the Congress of Bukharian Jews of USA and Canada (a.k.a Bukharian Jewish Congress) and the Bukharian Rabbinical Council of America are reputable sources as well for this subject. It seems the other encyclopedias are out of step with community usage on this, and I'm not convinced there's any good reason to go against the community usage here.--Pharos 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
These organizations' usage is certainly noteworthy and reputable, but their usage does not dictate English usage overall. Again, you seem to be missing the point. Tomertalk 07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to know how many of you guys are Bukharian? TShilo, I am sure that you're not. Well I am and I should know how my culture is spelled. It is Bukharian Jews, not Bukharan. Almost all Bukharians use the term 'Bukharian Jews.' Who are you to tell them that they are wrong? It is because of smart asses like you[citation needed] why everyone hates Jews[citation needed] and I don't blame them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 10:11, October 28, 2007

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that this has nothing to do with who is or is not Bukharan or Bukharian. This has to do with writing an encyclopedia, not a blog as you seem to be far more interested in. "Your culture" is spelled variously in modified forms of the Arabic/Farsi, Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabets, not the Latin. Go read, you will find, regardless of what those Bukharan Jews who have made new homes in the US call themselves, practically everything written about the community refers to them as "Bukharan". (There is no such place as "Bukharia", after all, nor has there ever been!) I'm not telling you they're wrong to call themselves whatever they want, I'm telling you that you are wrong in attempting to foist a minority spelling on Wikipedia as "the correct spelling". Please see WP:NOT#SOAP. As for your last sentence, all I have to say is in the tags I put on it. Tomertalk 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know that I might have been out of line there and I'm sorry. But you're the one that doesn't respect me or my culture. You are the one that came to this page and started vandalizing it. You probably don't know why we call ourselves Bukharian. Bukhara was an Islamic Emirate and it was named because of a section in the Koran called Bukhari. Most of the people from there (Muslims and Jews) refer to themselves as Bukhari or Bukharian. I am a Bukharian Jew from Tajikistan and I have family members from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. All of us call ourselves Bukharians. The synagogue in Forest Hills has the name 'Bukharian Jewish Synagogue', not 'Bukharan.' The congress is called the 'Bukharian Jewish Congress of USA and Canada.' Why don't you respect my people or my culture? Telling me that I can't spell my culture correctly is insulting me. Why do you like doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are blocked. Please review WP:BP, especially WP:EVADE. Reviewing WP:VAND, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV wouldn't hurt either. I will not extend your block, but I'm sure if someone notices that you're evading it, they're going to feel free to go ahead and do so. On the substantive matters, I will talk to you again tomorrow. While you're enjoying your block, please review the policies I have cited above, and note carefully that I have never said "nobody says 'Bukharian'", I have only said that "Bukharan" is the proper English name as demonstrated above, regardless of what a few thousand new immigrants might mistakenly believe to be the traditional name of their community in a very different language. Nobody's set out here to disrespect you, least of all me, by saying "in English the name is Bukharan", although you are disrespecting the rest of us by telling us we're too stupid to know how to speak English. Regards, Tomertalk 00:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, you seem like a nice guy. We have a lot in common. We are both rare Jews (you're Puerto Rican and I'm Bukharian), we are both Sephardic, and we are both very much interested in Judaism. I would love to talk to you about our beautiful religion and about so many different kinds of Jews.

But, you still don't seem to get why we call ourselves the Bukharian Jews. Saying that a few thousand new immigrants are mistaken is a direct insult to me. I told you why we call ourselves Bukharians and you still don't give a crap. This means that you are being ignorant to my culture. Every single Bukharian (Jews, Christian, or Muslims) most of the times refers to him/herself as Bukharian or Bukhari. This is how English speakers spell it. I have many books about the Bukharian Jews and yes, some do say Bukharan but most of them (meaning the authors that know what they're talking about) say Bukharian.

You also keep on changing the biography on the Notable Bukharian Jewish pages. I have met, know, or have a connection to every single one of the notable Bukharian Jews. I have met Dorrit Moussaieff in Israel because my Israeli aunt worked with her in jewlery. I have met Lev Leviev, Boris Kandov and Jacob Arabo. Shoista Mullodzhanova is my great great aunt. Gavriel Mullokandov is my uncle's grandfather-in-law. And the list goes on. The point is that every single one of these people refer to themselves as Bukharian, even Dorrt who is secular. In one of the references on Dorrit's page, it says that she comes from a family of Bukharian jewlers, not Bukharan. All of these people would probably be insulted if you say that Bukharian is the wrong spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.171 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, you seem to be a nice enough guy yourself, albeit, with no actual disrespect intended, a bit wet behind the ears. Believe me, I would much rather be spending my time in far more productive pursuits than arguing with you about Wikipedia policy and the ways in which you persistently violate it. I would much rather work together with you to improve articles than quibble about a simple name. The problem is, while there is nothing wrong with calling Bukharan Jews "Bukharian Jews", insisting that "Bukharan Jews" is wrong simply because you've "never heard of it" violates WP:NOR. Refusing to bring forward a single source in favor of your position that "Bukharan Jews" is "wrong" doesn't support your position either, in fact, persistently saying it's "wrong" without citation actually weakens your position. If you read carefully, I have never said Bukharan Jews who call themselves "Bukharian" are "stupid" or "don't know who they are", or "can't speak English", nor anything else even remotely disrespectful. What I have persistently said is that their choosing to call themselves "Bukharian" demonstrates an infamiliarity with the fact that the well-established name for the community, for centuries, in English, is "Bukharan", not "Bukharian".
As for your assertion that I still don't seem to get why "[you] call [y]ourselves the Bukharian Jews", you're wrong. I do get it. That's not the issue here. Without intending insult, you can call yourselves "purple giraffes" for all I care. As I've outlined above, whatever you call yourselves, while it deserves mention, even prominent mention, does not overrule common English usage in reliable published sources. Saying I "don't give a crap" disrespects you is, instead, you disrespecting me. I do "give a crap", but I also "give a crap" about Wikipedia policy, which dictates that the preferred name is undeniably "Bukharan"—policies you seem hell-bent on running over rough-shod, in favor of your self-important personal preference. You do not determine Wikipedia policy, nor do you determine English usage. As I've said previously, your insistence that all non-Bukharan Jewish English-speakers are wrong to say "Bukharan", is you disrespecting millions of English speakers, Jewish and otherwise, and demonstrative of complete disregard for centuries of English literature. Your assertion that "authors [who] know what they're talking about...say 'Bukharian'" is, without citation, easily dismissable as an unqualified opinion, which has no place in Wikipedia. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you correct, nor does it give you license to inject that opinion into Wikipedia at your whim. By your own admission, "Bukharian" is not universal, not even among Bukharim—not even among American English-speaking Bukharim. I would suggest to you that perhaps you should consider that those who use "Bukharan" are, in fact, more familiar with traditional English-language usage than are those who use "Bukharian".
As for my changing the biographies of notable Bukharan Jews, I have done so with the sole interest of standardizing usage. I understand your personal interest in these articles, but your insistence on your preferred spelling verges on violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and in light of your confessions here, a strong appearance of WP:COI. As for how any of these people might perceive being told that "Bukharian" is "wrong", I really am not concerned. Whether it's "wrong" to say "Bukharian" is not particularly germane to the subject at hand. As I said above, "purple giraffes" is fine too. It doesn't matter. What is germane is what the community is referred to in reliable sources. Websites count, even websites of the community count. But they don't negate centuries of literature. And yes, if the community really did refer to itself as "purple giraffes", I would support including that in the article. On the verge of ad nauseum, I feel compelled to repeat that I have never advocated obliterating the spelling "Bukharian". I have consistently said, and previously demonstrated, that "Bukharian" is not the preferred English language (with the probsible exception of at least part of the English-speaking portion of the community-in-question itself) name. Regards, Tomertalk 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's in a name?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Eliyak, of course the Bukharian Jews aren't in any dictionary you checked. No one knows about them yet. They were isolated from the Jewish world for 2,000 years. What do you expect? Besides, Bukharan isn't in any dictionary either. What should we do? Maybe you could ask a Bukharian because only we know how to spell our names. Don't have to be a genius to figure that one out. I'm not being mean. I'm just stating the obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.161 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

In English we are usually called the Bukharian Jews. People who call us Bukharans are the people who just assume because of the Emirate of Bukhara. Every single English-speaking Bukharians call him/herself a Bukharian. I'm being wrong? Well you're being funny. I would like it if you would stop saying "they are called Bukharans". I'm also Bukharian so you should say "your people" instead of "they." I'm not wrong because I am Bukharian. How stupid will I be if I couldn't spell my own culture. If you're gonna call me stupid and wrong because I use Bukharian, then you are insulting all English-speaking Bukharians. If you insult and don't like Bukharians, then why do you care about their page? 74.73.19.171 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sorry it took so long. Something happened to my internet. Anyway, over here, [2], it says Bukharian Jewish Quarter. When I went to the quarter in Jerusalem, it had shuls, schools, etc inside. Everything was written in Hebrew, English, Bukhori, and Russian. In English, everything would say "Bukharian Jewish..." In Israel, all the English-speaking Bukharians call themselves and the quarter Bukharian. We have to respect that. Besides, we can just use the cite as a source. It has all the information we need. 74.73.19.161 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'd rather be silly than someone who is disrespectful of another person's heritage and people. It is pretty obvious that you don't respect Bukharians one bit. This isn't even a secret anymore. 74.73.19.161 02:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Proposal for "name" section

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.

  1. Leave the article at Bukharan Jews for the reasons I've listed above.
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.
  4. 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)

I think that's a good idea. Just leave the article the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.171 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't want to change the article anymore. I just want to move the article back to Bukharian Jews. I seriously never heard of Bukharan before this. It is a big difference how you pronounce it. But you don't really know that because you didn't meet a lot of Bukharians. You don't know why we call ourselves this. I don't think that you or anyone else should make changes on the article unless you have went to a Bukharian Jewish community anywhere in the United States or wherever you live. You have to have first-hand knowledge on the subject before just starting to change everything. For example, I am not going to start editing the Puerto Rican Jewish wikipedia page only based on websites only. What is these websites are bogus? To get the full idea, you have to meet people from the community. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Where do you live? I'll tell you a close Bukharian Jewish neighborhood. The best one to go to is the one in Forest Hills, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.171 (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
I fully support Tomer's position/s here. Thank you, IZAK 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You people who say that Bukharan is the right way to spell it are ignorant. I am a Bukharian Jew. Doesn't that mean anything? Tomer, all I am saying is that if you really care about my community, then go to a Bukharian Jewish community and meet the people. They will be more than happy to talk to you and to teach you about the history. When I was in school, it was mostly Bukharian Jews. When people would ask you who you are, you say "Bukharian." If you say "Bukharan", they'll think you're insane. Almost all Bukharian Jews and Muslims call themselves Bukharian. Does that mean anything.

btw, I have noticed that there isn't a whole article about Puerto Rican Jews. What about making it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.171 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

What are you talking about? All I am saying is that if you're really interested about the Bukharian Jews like you seem to be, then visit their community. Just a suggestion. Or are you talking about the difference between Bukharan and Bukharian? If you are then I can ashure you that my German Jewish rabbi and every single person I know refers to it as Bukharian and not Bukharan. Bukharan is just retarded. 74.73.19.161 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of you people think that Bukharan is the write way to spell it because of Bukhara. Well you guys need to increase your knowledge. English speaking Bukharians (Muslims and Jews) don't use the term Bukharan. They use either Bukharian or Bukhari. This is a fact. The reason is simple. Bukhara was named after a section in the Koran called Bukhari. Many people from the place acknowledge that so they call themselves Bukhari or Bukharian. If anyone thinks that Bukharan is the right way, then just leave this article and come back when you'll meet some Bukharians and be exposed to their culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have met a lot of Bukharian Muslims. Bukharian Jews and Bukharian Muslims don't really have a good connection but I have still met some. All of them describe themselves as Bukhari or Bukharian, usually Bukhari. They describe themselves as that because of the Koran. Don't you think that you have to respect their decision. Some Bukharian Jews in New York? First, you're gonna have to stop calling me Bukharan because that's very disrespectful. Would you like it if I called you Puerta Ricon Jew? Second of all, Bukharian Jews across America call themselves Bukharian and Bukharian Jews in Israel also call themselves Bukharian Jews, not Bukharan. Go to a Bukharian Jewish community in Israel and see for yourself. That's almost 100,000 Bukharians in Israel and almost 50,000 in the US. In Europe, they call themselves Bukharian. Dorrit Moussaieff and my aunt were business partners at one point. I had the pleasure of meeting Dorrit a few years ago when I visited Israel. She refers to her family and herself as Bukharian. I have family in Moscow who call themselves Bukharian and in Austria. In proper English, it's actually Bukharian. In Russian, we say Bukharsky.

I'm just saying that if you are interested in the Bukharian Jews, then visit the community. It has nothing to do with wikipedia. But don't you think that you should respect Bukharians? You sure seem to disrespect us a lot. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.19.171 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am going to have to take LeeMulod333's side on this one. I am a Bukharian and we don't call ourselves "Bukharan." I think it's stupid how a lot of the nonBukharians just come on to this Bukharian Jewish wikipedia page and completely ruin it. Some person also blocked it like he owns the page or something like that. I hate it how these people who think they know everything about my culture actually know nothing. BukharianChick 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Category:Bukharan Jews

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)

I put it in the Forest Hills, Queens page. There are lots of Bukharians there and the Bukharian Jewish Congregation of USA and Canada is also there. So is the museum and other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surnames of allegèdly Bukhar[i]an Jews

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)

As somewhat of an aside perhaps, don't get me wrong...I fully support the axiom that an immigrant to a Jewish community should become a part of that community, adopting its minhagim as his own. This is the ruling according to Beth Yosef[3]. So, when Ashkenazim have settled there, they should have become an integral part of the Bukharan community, as Bukharans. (The real "aside" is the egregious nature of the establishment of the Rishon LeTziyon "Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi" ba'aretz, in contravention of halakha.) The reason I ask is because there seems to be a concentration on these individuals with apparently Russified names, if not originally Ashkenazim themselves, and the "native Bukharans" apparently warrant no mention. Did the Russian Jews that seriously dominate the locals, economically, or did the Bukharans Russify their surnames in order to ingratiate themselves to their Russian domineers? That is the question I'm asking. Tomertalk 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Um Tomer, is this an "Ashkenazi witch hunt" or somp'n? In any case, use logic based on the facts of known general Russian history, if Russia RULED over Buchara for centuries then it is obvious that Russian gentiles and Jews did not just "amble" over there but they marched, or rode, in in all their Russian glory, with mud from Russia on their boots to boot, and imposed the ways of the Rus on the subjugated Bucharans (note how I am spelling this now) as they did upon the hundreds of other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups that dotted and inhabited the late not lamented Russian Empire. Why are you so fixated on this subject in any case? Maybe it's those heeby-jeebies about the naughty Ashkenazim again I guess. IZAK 10:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    Heh. Nothing of the sort. I just think there's a bit of history missing here. Either Russian Ashkenazim were adopted into the Bukharan "fold", so to speak, which I would regard as "normal" and "halakhically proper", or the Bukharans, for whatever reason, set about Russifying their surnames. In either case, whatever happened seems me worthy of mention. The other possibility is that the people being tagged as "Bukharan Jews" are not actually Bukharan, but rather Ashkenazim who never felt obliged by halakha (viz. the situation in .il) to integrate into the local community, and are, therefore, being inaccurately tagged as "Bukharan", rather than as "Jews from Uzbekistan". No witch hunt, just a request for clarification. I do my best to keep my misgivings about what I perceive as an Ashkenazi desire for hegemony out of my editorial interests on Wikipedia. Kol tov, Tomertalk 10:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bucharan. Hahaha. Mr. Cheth=Khaf.  :-P Ah the awesomeness of being Jewish. Would that this quibble should be the greatest of our worries. Tomertalk 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can answer Tomer's original question. Yes many Bukharian Jews do have Russian surnames and it has NOTHING with do with the Ashkenazis. During the Russian Revolution and when Central Asia became part of the Soviet Union, they started to make other people's surnames sound more Russian. For example, Boris Kandov. His great grandparents' surname was originally Kand, which means sugar cube in Bukharian. The Russians put the -ov at the end of the name to russify it. Now, his last name is Kandov. Many Bukharian Jews speak Russian and have Russian surnames. Some even identify as Russians or Soviets.

The Ashkenazis are not part of the Bukharian Jewish history at all. They came during the late 1800s-early 1900s to Central Asia. They didn't, at first, accept the Bukharian Jews as real Jews because we don't speak Yiddish. They were really trying to be isolated from us (not all of them though). In school, my mom was made fun of because she was Jewish and she was also made fun of by the Ashkenazis because she was Bukharian. This was during the Soviet times. LeeMulod333 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

That's a good question. They kept these names because they were more used to it. For example, Boris Kandov was born with the surname Kandov and that's what everyone knows him as. It'll be weird if he'll change his name to Kand. But there are a few Bukharians who changed their name. There are many Bukharian Jews in Queens who changed their name from Davidov to Davidoff or just David and who changed it from Rubinov to Rubin. I have a Russian last name and I'm asked all the time if I'm Russian. But I just deal with it and I don't really find it such a problem that I would actually change it. LeeMulod333 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using Joan Roth as a source for Bukharan history

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)

What Joan Roth says is the truth. She has met Bukharians and studied their history. There are some sources that say that they were Jews who never came back from the Assyrian exile but this is false and was never proven. Many real Bukharian historians (who are Bukharians) say the truth. Bukharians know where there ancestors came from. LeeMulod333 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so cite them. Joan Roth is not a reliable source for ancient Bukharan history. Tomertalk 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

It is called Bukharian. Joan Roth is very reliable. I had my grandfather (who knows a bit more than you about his history) read it and he said that this is our history. If you are getting sick of all this then just leave. No one is forcing you to stay here. LeeMulod333 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am the one cleaing up your messes. I know my facts and my people. You, on the other hand, know nothing about us. I'm not saying this to offend you because I know nothing about Puerto Rican Jews. But you don't see me acting like a know it all. And what about the cite I provided about the lobby? Doesn't that matter? LeeMulod333 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you mean Bukharian is more common, Lee?

How, in what way? SamEV 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:
9,480 for "bukharian jews"
13,500 for "bukharan jews"

Seems obvious which is more common, Lee. Also, whatever your personal opinion of what the article's title ought to be, it happens that the article's current title is Bukharan Jews. Take a looksee at the WP:MOS#First sentences for what it says regarding, well, the first sentences in articles. SamEV 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the pages that write Bukharan Jews are written by people who just assume that just because we are from the Emirate of Bukhara, we are Bukharan. But this is not true. All people from Central Asia know that we are called the Bukharian Jews. There are Muslims from Bukhara and they call themselves Bukhari. But the writers who spelled it Bukharian, they know what they are talking about because they did some more research and they even met some Bukharians.

These days, we have a lobby, several shuls, a quarter in Jerusalem, etc. The name of the lobby is the "Bukharian lobby," the name of all our shuls is the "Bukharian Jewish Synagogoue," the name of our museum is the "Bukharian Jewish museum," and the name of our quarter is "Bukharian Quarter." Also, all English-speaking Bukharians say that Bukharan is not proper and Bukharian is.

This is not a personal opinion. I'm am a Bukharian Jew and I do know the proper spelling. I don't want to be annoying or rude but it just makes me so mad when people say the name is "Bukharan Jews" and that I'm wrong. How can I be wrong about my people? LeeMulod333 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Confusing readers

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)

[edit] Many Bukharan Jews come from Spain after the Inquisition? Are you kidding me???

The claim, which is made in the "Background" section of the article, that the Jews of Spain during the Inquisition migrated from Spain to Persia and then to Central Asia, is a total, absolute, LIE!

The so-called "source" for this claim is a so-called Natanova Lianna, an immigrant Bukharan Jew in America. She was interviewed to tell her experiences in Soviet Union and her background, and unfortunately for the interviewer, she lied and said that a lot of Bukharan Jews come from Spain. So, let me ask the Bukharan Jew who added this claim to the article, how is Natanova Lianna, who was merely asked to tell her life story, an expert on where the Spanish Jews went after the Inquisition? Apparently, she must've been extrapolating on the fact that all non-Ashkenazi Jews are called "Sephardic", and therefore wrongly assumed in her stupidity that therefore Bukharan Jews come from Spain. But then, any non-Ashkenazi Jew can claim their descent from Spain just because they call themselves "Sephardic"? Utter nonsense. Most likely though, she didn't have that in mind when she made that assertion; she was probably just ashamed of the association that Bukharan Jews have with Central Asians in the eyes of of the world, and BUKHARANS THEMSELVES, and therefore decided to portray Bukharan Jews as "descendants" of the Spanish Jews who fled the Inquisition to make Bukharans look less "Central Asian".

If we are to follow the standards used here for any other article on Wiki, then that means we can find any person who has an opinion on the topic of the article and put it there? Sounds stupid, right?

I know, it sounds very "romantic" to claim your descent from the exiled Jews of Spain, and makes Bukharan Jews less "Asian" in the eyes of world and Bukharans themselves, but making such PATHETICALLY false claims about Bukharan Jews' descent makes it VERY obvious that many Bukharans have self-image and identity problems to deal with regarding their ethnicity.

Lastly, I'd just love to ask Lianna Natanova how many Bukharan Jews have Ladino elements in their language or can speak Ladino, the language spoken by the Jews of Spain and Portugal. After all, 500 years is too short a time period to have caused the total disappearance of Latin words in your language.

So now, I'm going to remove the aforementioned claim from the article, seeing as no Bukharan has yet done that.

--24.188.136.219 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What this lady said was the truth. There were a few Jews who kicked out of Spain and came to Central Asian. Many Bukharian Jews do look very Spanish. Natanova did not lie about this. Bukhori does have some traces of Spanish. There are some words in Bukharian that are the same in Spanish. I don't speak it very well but my grandparents and cousins do. They know that Spanish and Bukharian share similar words. Bukharian music also has some Spanish chords. There were also Jews from Eastern countries who came to Central Asia. Yosef Maman was a Moroccan Jew who came to Central Asian, married a Bukharian woman and their kids were raised as Bukharian Jews. We, the Bukharian Jews, do not have self-image or identity problems. Most Bukharian Jews have Middle Eastern Jewish ancestors but there are a few who have Spanish ancestors. Are you Bukharian yourself? If you are, then you should ask your grandparents about it. If you're not, you should read some more about Bukharians. 74.73.19.161 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are going to have to provide a valid source (not some Bukharan woman's fantasy) to keep the quote in the article. Otherwise, don't kid yourself. It's ridiculous to even think that Spanish Jews would travel all the way to Central Asia to join some little known community of Bukharan Jews; historical accounts show that almost all Sephards relocated east from Spain, but still in EUROPE, or to North Africa/Mideast/Ottoman empire. Don't add the quote back again until you find a valid source. Also, the source doesn't provide anything for claim that Jews from Mideastern/North African countries migrated to Bukharia. Regarding my background, I AM a descendant of Spanish Jews who fled to Holland. --24.188.136.219 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What this lady was saying was no lie at all. There were Jews from the Spanish Inquisition who made it all the way to Central Asia. I have some Spanish ancestry on my maternal grandmother's side. She can trace her mother's ancestry all the way to the Spanish Inquisition. Our Bukharian music has Spanish chords. Listen to Bukharian music and you'll know what I'm talking about. People from Middle East did migrate to Central Asia. After the Babylonian exile, there were JEws who still remained in Babylon. Through the years, they lived in Babylon (Iraq) and the Persian empire until a lot of them took the sild road to Central Asia. I could also trace my father's side to the Middle Eastern countries like Persia, Iraq, and Yemen. Yosef Maman (he's in the article) was a Moroccan Jew who traveled to Bukhara. He married a Bukharian Jewish girl and their kids were raised as Bukharian Jews. Similar siuations happened to several Jews who came from the Middle East to Central Asia. 74.73.19.161 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)