User talk:Shevashalosh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

help on image in my article Besiyata Dishmaya

Sorry, but I don't really know much about the rules for images. It looks to me like the "no license" issue is raised on the Commons page, not the Wikipedia image page, so you probably need to respond there. If you're not sure what is needed, I'd suggest asking at the village pump. --Russ (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ThanX! --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Joyson Noel

Hi, and congratulations for the article which have contributed. You did a good job. The category "Black Jews" which you have placed for the article Yemenite Jews is wrong, since Yemenite Jews are generally considered to be part of the Mizrahim and not black.

When people refer to the "Black Jews", they actually mean those Jews whose origins are from the African continent and are related to the Black race, be it the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, Black Hebrew Israelites from the United States, Abayudaya from Uganda, etc, as opposed to the term "African Jews" which generally refer to those Jews, even if they are of Ashkenazi and Sephardi origin, which currently reside in the African continent.

While it is true that Yemenite Jews are darker than most Arabs and lighter than most Indians, they are certainly not black because they did not originate from Africa, but are descended from the Ancient Hebrews who settled in Yemen. After they settled, they intermarried with the locals and formed the Yemenite Jewish community.

In terms of physical appearence, Yemenite Jews do not resemble Blacks. Yigal Amir is of Yemenite Jewish descent. Does he look black to you?

Even culture-wise, other than their Jewish faith and their shared common origin from the ancient Bibilical Israelites, they share little similarities with other Black Jewish communities. They speak a dialect which is a mixture of ancient Hebrew and the Arabic language that is spoken by the local Arabs.

I hope i have made my points clear. I am going to revert your edits. If you have any objections, you can message me at my talk page.

Have a nice day! Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Second reply from Joyson Noel

First of all, I dont read Hebrew which renders me unable to read the Hebrew article which you have referred to. As for Bo'az Ma'uda, he looks more like an Arab, but definitely not black.

I apologize for having inaccurately said that they are part of the Mizrahim, since i was not aware of this. After having done some search on google which have corroborated what you said, I now fully agree with you that the Yeminite Jews are separate from the Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, although they are sometimes put into this category.

However, i dont think that they are black, because they bear little or no similarities in physical appearence or other characteristics to the Jews from Africa, apart from religion or common origin.

I am now going to revert your edit. If you can come up with a proper verifiable source (presumably in English), which state that Yemenite Jews are part of the Black Jews, then please feel free to put it back in. Thank you, Joyson Noel (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third reply from Joyson Noel

Best of Luck ! Joyson Noel (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And from me!

I agree with Joyson Noel.

I know about Yemenites being called "shehorim", "Cushi" etc as an insult. That is just because they are darker than the Ashkenazim. It is no guide to accurate ethnography. (Similarly among the Bene Israel and Cochin Jews there are sub-groups of "white Jews" and "black Jews", but the difference is scarcely noticeable to the naked eye.)

There is a polemical use of "black" to mean "victim of colour or racial prejudice", like when the hero of "The Commitments" says that the Irish are "the blacks of Europe". That is why one group of Mizrahi activists called themselves "The Black Panthers". Again this is not an ethnographic term, any more than the Israeli use of "Anglo-Saxons" for immigrants from Britain, America, Australia etc. means that they are actually descended from the Angles and Saxons.

Yes the Yemenites are different from other Mizrahi groups. That is purely a matter of religious custom, such as liturgy, pronunciation etc, not ethnography. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ThanX for your best of luck to me. they are different from Mizrahi - caus Mizrahi are brown and they are black (and ashkenzi are white).

good day! --Shevashalosh (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you mean by black? Are you actually saying they are like black Africans? None of the ones I have seen are, and I used to go to a synagogue of Adeni Jews in London. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what i said. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews reference

Hi, I suggest you discuss about these references with Sirmylesnagopaleentheda. Being Jewish himself and well versed in Jewish history, philosophy and languages, he is much more informative about this subject than me. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ok I will, thanX! --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews

Thanks for your latest message. This is getting more and more difficult!

It is quite possible that there was once a link between the Yemenites and the Ethiopian Jews. For that matter, it is quite possible that there was a link between Southern Arabians and Ethiopians generally: Ethiopians speak Semitic languages, and in many ways their features are closer to those of Arabs than to those of other black Africans. The Ethiopians are however dark enough to be called "black". That does not justify a syllogism "Ethiopians are black; Ethiopians look like southern Arabs; therefore southern Arabs are black": in fact the skin colour is the difference between the two groups.

Same here. The Ethiopian Jews may be like the Yemenites in all sorts of ways; the one exception is in their skin colour. It's not sophisticated anthropology: just look at them!

There's actually an oddity about the Ethiopian Jews. Ethnically they appear to be more akin to the Agau than to the Amhara, and they used to speak a non-Semitic language (Kailina); so there is an argument for saying that they are less Semitic, and more African, than the Ethiopian Christians!

It's true that Yemenites, both Jewish and Muslim, are noticeably darker than other Arabs, and it is possible that one reason is an admixture of African blood, either Ethiopian or other. And it is not clear whether the origins of the Semitic language family are in Arabia and then crossed to the Horn of Africa or the other way round. But all this would have happened many centuries before there were any Jews at all, whether Yemenite, Ethiopian or anything else.

In brief, the spectrum goes: Mizrahim (light brown); Yemenites, Jewish or not (Arab-looking, darker brown, but not enough to be black); Ethiopian Christians (still darker, enough to be called black); Ethiopian Jews (fairly clearly black); sub-Saharan Africans generally (black).

Best wishes. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Responce

ThanX for your response! My argument is different. We are not talking About what you define in general as Black, we are talikng about what is accepteble in Israel. For this reason, Joyson Noel‎ and I have agreed that what I have corrected in the English as They are considered as a third separate Group to the common definition of Edot Ashkenaz and Edot HaMizrach (Mizrahim), with accordance to the Hebrew article. The rest we are debating right here.

one Remark to Joyson Noel (I hope he reads it)‎, who said they are some times are included with Mizrahi, is a common mistake, since when people are talking about "non-Ashkenazi" - then Yemenite jews are included, but being a "non-Ashkenazi" does not mean you fall within the category of being "Mizrahi" eather, which is obviously the case of either Yemenite Jews or Ethiopian Jews.

And for the latter reason that was agreed up on, I thought the English article was lacking of some information.

Therefore, maybe the question is not about, me bringing references to the English Article, but rather adding an additional sentence to the opening line: ''They are considered as a third separate Group to the common definition of Edot Ashkenaz and Edot HaMizrach (Mizrahim) - that clarifies their status within the Israeli society conventions (rather then out side of Israel), and/or adding the category "black Jews".

What do you suggest as a solution for this matter?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

wow! I didn't know that Sirmylesnagopaleentheda and Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) - were the same user! I thought Sirmylesnagopaleentheda wasn't responding and that Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) was responding instead.... sorry Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da)...

--Shevashalosh (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't allowed spaces in usernames, only in nicknames: hence the difference between the two spellings.

It's already clear from the article that, religiously, Yemenites are a third category beside Ashkenazim and Sephardim. (There is no religious category "Mizrahim": that is simply an umbrella term for Jews from Arab and Asian countries, most of whom use some variant of the Sephardi rite. Sometimes you see "Sephardim and Edot ha-Mizrach", say on prayer books, as a single comprehensive category. I agree Yemenites fall outside this group.) Even then, you've got to take account of the fact that the majority of Yemenites use the Shami rite, which is fairly Sephardified; the London Adeni lot used the Baghdadi "Tefillat Yesharim" book with no problem. For that matter there are other categories, such as Italians and Romaniots, and there used to be a lot more (e.g. Provence).

Ethnographically, I think they do count as Mizrahim, albeit unusual Mizrahim, as they speak Arabic, come from Asia and look fairly like their erstwhile Arab neighbours; though unlike other Mizrahim, no one ever calls them "Sephardim". They don't fall altogether outside the group like the Ethiopians. And, which is the original point, for English-speaking purposes they are not black!

In conclusion I see no reason for any change to the relevant articles.

Shabbat shalom. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your personal view, and I also think they need to fall in to the category of Mizrahim. But I wasn't talking about my personal view, rather what is acceptable in Israel.

in addition, Edah today, although initially represented the religious differences in praying book etc . - Also represent the ethnic differences among us. This is what I was talking about (see the relationship between מנחם בגין [or מזרחים or צ'חצ'חים] probably the articles in Hebrew - not English.

by any case, the edit at the opening statement is good enough for now, i didnt realize it will take so much time. let's move on to other articles!

thanX for everything! I love debating, it makes articles much better.

p.s

what did you mean by :

You aren't allowed spaces in usernames, only in nicknames: hence the difference between the two spellings. ??

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)