Talk:Mountain Jews

I have PERMISSION from the people at this website. Don't say that there is suspicion of copyright infringement!

I even have the email!!!! Here it is:

• From: kiisu@eki.ee
• Subject: Re: Mountain Jews
• Date: March 18, 2004 11:16:18 PM PST

Some time ago I already gave full permission to use the whole book in Wikipedia. Please check if the contents of the Red Book are available in other sections, it may turn out that a simple link is sufficient. Anyway, you are free to use the material as you see fit.

• Indrek Hein
• webmaster@eki.ee

-User:Dagestan

This is not enough. He needs to explicitly license the material under the GFDL. And he needs to actually say those words. Then the "some text from" can be removed and the site can be used as a source. --Storkk 11:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Storkk: I think not. "You are free to use the material as you see fit" is basically a comprehensive license. You can't get much more comprehensive. It would certainly encompass permission for Indrek Hein to release it under GFDL. - 03:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

Hrmn... It seems not to work like that for images anyway. The actual license words need to come out of their mouth from what I've seen. The basic reason (i think) is that we're not only using it, we're explicitly licensing it to everybody to use under the GFDL. --Storkk 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If so, that's a matter of Wikipedia policy, not law.

Dagestan, any reason you cannot get back to Indrek Hein and get that permission explicitly? - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about it "not being law", because using and licensing are two very different things (IANAL)... but good luck getting Dagestan to respond... his last edit was in May 2004. If someone could contact the author, that would be great. I would, but I don't use email. I agree that the original author gave what might be construed as de facto permission, but as far as I can tell, Wikipedia needs de jure permission. This is the dual reason that: I haven't blanked it as copyvio; and also why I'm being so insistent here. --Storkk 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A crux of the problem: "Simple permission is not good enough. The owner can revoke permission at any time, and the content can't be reused anywhere else: not in Wiktionary, not in Wikibooks, etc. " (adapted from comments about image deletion). --Storkk 15:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tried; the email addresses given above no longer work. So where do we go from here? Do we even know which material was taken from that source? - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have emailed the webmaster of the site, and will post back here and on talk:Mountain Jews/permission if and when I get permission. --Storkk 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting article. :) But is there any reason for that National Geographic quote to be there? I'd much rather see our own summary, which obviously could incorporate any relevant information from the NG piece. Markalexander100 07:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An anon recently added "Also known as Caucasian Jews." Does anyone know, does that term also include the Gruzim? (If so, article should clarify). -- Jmabel

no. Geagea 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it doesn't. The term Caucasian Jews refers to Mountain Jews only. Georgian Jews are Georgian Jews. Even spoken language is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.59 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wish I was a mountain Jew. That's the coolest name for a race of people I've ever heard of. --NoPetrol 07:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

& these ain't no Catskills... -- Jmabel | Talk 09:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

So, RF welcomes you to multinational Pyatigorsk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.35.97 (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know if the recently anonymously added mention of National Geographic in the photo caption is correct? It's not mentioned on the image page. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

"here is some debate on the origin of the Jewish Tats, with some defending that they are not Tat at all but simply Jews that took the Tat language, while others argue that they are the descendants of Tats that converted to Judaism." What does this mean? They have to have come from somewhere. Being 'Jew' alone doesn't indicate an ethnicity, unless what is meant is that they are Afro-Asiatic->Canaanite->Hebrew! --Alif 03:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jew indeed indicates ethnicity, among other things; read the article on Jew for more information. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article 'Jews' syas:

"Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and those who joined their religion at various times and places. The term Jew came into being when the Kingdom of Israel was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. Hence, the Israelites (who were later largely destroyed by the Assyrians) were those of the northern kingdom and the Jews (who survived) were those of the southern kingdom. Over time, the word Jew has come to refer to those of the Jewish faith rather than those from Judah. In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification."

Adding to this what this article says:

"There is some debate on the origin of the Jewish Tats, with some defending that they are not Tat at all but simply Jews that took the Tat language, while others argue that they are the descendants of Tats that converted to Judaism."

This makes it more accurate and NPV to not assert such ethnical connonations. What do you think? --Alif 18:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But Tat Jews are a specific ethnic group, with their own language, customs, etc., regardless of their origins. Why do you object to this? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true. According to the article, they use Tat language. Even when/if their dialect is affected by their religion in the form of loanwords, usage, it is still the same language as their neighbours. Also, from the article: "Any specific Mountain Jew features, distinguishing them from the Islamic environment, originate in Judaism", which means that their daily life details, costumes, customs, are due to their different religion. A Catholic Irish person isn't ethnically different from an Protestant Irish person, even though they may be affected with English culture to different extents, or even live in a different country.

What I'm objecting to is using religion as a race-establishing factor, because it isn't logical. Saying a different prayer does not change one's genetic ancestry. Not that there's something as a "pure race", or "superior/inferior" nation or anything, but rather because it simply defies logic. --Alif 19:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on most of this, but "ethnicity" is not just a code word for "race". Ethnicity is a mix of language, culture, physical type, self-identification, etc. as its etymology suggests, it is more like nationality. It is malleable. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

They spoke Judeo-Tat [1] [2] , they have different customs etc. Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish are quite arguably different ethnicities; Protestant Irish originate mostly from Scotland, and have been separate from Catholic Irish for at least 400 years. And as Jmabel points out, ethnicity and race are different matters. (Jayjg 6 Mar 2005)

The Tat/Juhuri language is definitely NOT closely related to "Middle Persian". Middle Persian is an older stage of Persian, and Tat is not any closer to it than Modern Persian/Farsi. Haspelmath 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)--Reply

I agree with Alif, they're not a separate ethnicity. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) 29 November 2006.

Mountain Jews are clearly a separate ethnicity. Why is it even discussed? We have our own customs, beliefs, language, traditions, history. Attempts to generalize on term "Mountain Jews" are doomed to fail. Our ethnicity goes back to the days of Khazars. How can this be denied? Whether Khazars are the nowadays Mountain Jews are still an open debate. Partial integration following the fall of Khazaria definitely seems possible.

Either add all other Jewish groups, who were living in the area of Khazar Empire (Ashkenazi and Georgian Jews, Russian and Hungarian Subbotniks - Selezny), or remove Caucasian Jews from this group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.248.4 (talk • contribs) 4 Feb 2006.

The relationship between the Mountain Jews and the Khazars stems from the fact that the Mountain Jews' ancestors lived in the Caucasus prior to the rise of Khazaria, were probably subject to it, and may have contributed to its conversion to Judaism. See, e.g., Blady, Ken. Jewish Communities in Exotic Places.

this is a very different relationship than that of the Ashkenazim, whose Khazar descent is an extreme minority view being disproven by genetic studies, or the other groups you mention, whose relationship with the Khazars is largely apocryphal. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, I do not like ignorant authors. Calling Transcuacasia "exotic place" in relation of anything Jewish is a top of ignorance. Transcaucasia, is known from ancient Mesopotamian, Hebrew, Persian and Greek sources. Anybody knows from the Megilat Esther, that Jews, were living in ALL satrapies of Persian Empire (including Caucasian Albania). From the point view of Jews - Western Europe ('Lands of Franks") , India and Ethiopia - are indeed exotic places.

Second, the name "Groups connected to the Khazars" implies, that those groups descended from the Khazars. For the sake of NPV I propose, to rename this group to "Groups supposedly connected to the Khazars", then you may include there all the groups, who at some point of view, where living in the area of Khazar Empire. This also include following Jewish sub-ethnic groups: Ashkenazim (or the earlier populations assimilated into Ashkenazim), Sepharadim in Bulgaria and Turkey (there is documented facts, that some Jewish Khazars moved to Byzantium), Crymchaks, Crimean Karaims, Hungarian Sabbatarins, Russian Subbotniks, East Caucasian Jews and Georgian Jews.

Nothing yet proven or disproven 100%. The DNA research of East Caucasian Jews doesn't show Khazar ancestry neither. Yet Ashkenazim not included into this group, and Caucasian Jews included. As Crimean Jews (Krymchaks) included, and anybody knows, that they were largely assimilated by Ashkenazim (that's one of reasons why they are almost extinct commnunity now), so Ashkenazim should be included too.

Anyway, I not removed all the old and long ago disproven theories about origin of Caucasian Jews. As I trying to preserve neutral point of view. But it hard to do, when other editors don't.

For example in the article about Juhuri language, written:

"The language is closely related to Middle Persian; it belongs to the Iranian division of the Indo-European languages. A similar, but still different language is spoken by the Muslim Tats of Azerbaijan, a group to which the Mountain Jews have sometimes been considered to belong. Speakers of Juhuri are called Juhuro, which simply means "Jews"."

The style of writing implies ancestral relation between Jews and Tats. It's like if I will write in the article about Yiddish:

"The language is closely related to High German; it belongs to the Germanic division of the Indo-European languages. A similar, but still different language is spoken by the Christian Germans of Germany, a group to which the European Jews have sometimes been considered to belong. Speakers of Yiddish are called Yiddn, which simply means "Jews"."

But nobody sane will imply conection between European Jews and Germans, while they freely doing this in case of Caucasian Jews. This was just example of not providing NPV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.47.98 (talk • contribs) 11 Feb 2006.

BTW, clearly some (perhaps many) hold precisely the view about Jewish Germans that you are putting forward as absurd. For example, I've been fighting a losing battle to describe Henry Kissinger as a Jewish American rather than a German American. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that "Juhurim" was changed to "Juhuro" without comment. A quick Google search suggests that they do, indeed call themselves "Juhuro"; does "Juhurim" also exist? It would follow the pattern of the naming of similar subgroups of the Jews ("Ashkenazim", "Sephardim", "Mizrahim"…). - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

RESPONSE: (IM NOT REALLY SURE HOW TO ADD AN ACTUAL RESPONSE SO I WILL DO IT THIS WAY

In our language we call ourselves "Juhuro" (which itself is plural in Caucasi for "Juhur"(Jew)). The "im" is a Hebrew ending added to words to indicate the plural. So in Hebrew if one were to use the word "Juhur" to refer to us, they would add the "im" to talk about more than one "Juhur". "Juhurim" is neither an actual Hebrew word nor Caucasi. A direct translation in hebrew (i.e. hebrew of Jews) would be "Yehudim" (plural for Yehudi).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.21.126 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

Mountain Jews call themselves - Juhuro, not Juhurim. Please - keep it to the facts and stop twisting Mountain Jews history to fit your own predefined mindset or belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.59 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

66.81.74.75 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"im" is a noun suffix in Hebrew for the bulk of masculine plural nouns.--66.81.74.75 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Exactly. So is this change from a Hebrew plural to their own language what we want to do? - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Juhurim" / "Gruzim" / etc. are artificial terms. They are only used here in Wikipedia.

The only similar term, which is used in Hebrew is "Bukharim", meaning Bukharan Jew. East-Caucasian Jews called in Hebrew "Kavkazim". Georgian "Gruzinim" (not "Gruzim"!). Both have sometimes pejorative meaning, because they frequently used in jokes (mostly about "Gruzinim"). The Georgian Jews themselves preffer to be called "Georgian Jews" - "Georgim". Jews (and non-Jews) from Russia are called "Russim" in Hebrew. But I do not see any Wikipedia page calling Russian Jews - "Russim". —This unsigned comment was added by 212.25.107.145 (talk • contribs) 29 March 2006.

Can this subject be closed? Juhuro call themselves Juhuro. Period. Is that that difficult to understand? Stop calling us "Juhurim". These are fake artificial names.

someone or me should add that a bunch of (don't know the number) of MJs live in berlin, just like me. -- Michael-O 2006-07-30

I put up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lezginka , if anyone wants to add to it or rewrite it so its not copying britanica, you can do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shulbek (talk • contribs) 13 August 2006.

The Jews in Azerbaijan and the Bukharan Jews are not the same

and in this "{{Asia in topic|History of the Jews in}}" you have mistake.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.174.211 (talk • contribs) 1 September 1, 2006.

He is a Mountain Jew from Derbent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.168.228 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Khazanov has no relation to Mountain Jews or the Caucasus whatsoever. His mother was an Ashkenazi and his biological father was also an Ashkenazi. Considering the surname Khazanov as far as I'm aware it's his mother's maiden surname. http://bozaboza.narod.ru/hazanova.html Russian Wikipedia says that "khazan" is an ancient Jewish word, not specific to the Caucasus. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please search carefully and amend them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.173.243 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I second that. No Mountain Jews in Armenia and Kazakhstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.59 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

All the "citations needed" can be removed. 1. as a soldier in IDF i know axactly the origins of our generals. more of that one of my best friends is relative to them. 2. about Illiazarov - well, my moms uncle wrote a book about him. they was good friends. (rip) 3. zhasmine: she's my mom's cousine. 4. as our number is small, many of us are relatives in some sort... ru:user:david_tm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.197.51 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

mountain jews realy live in iran? there are only persian jews in iran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.228.237 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The last two paragraphs of the lead were copied word for word from the Telegraph article originally used as the citation for the second paragraph, which made it a copyright violation. I have added quotation marks and citations for both paragraphs. Editors are not supposed to copy material directly, especially without full quotation, but to use sources for facts. See Wiki policies on plagiarism and copyright violation.Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I tried to trace these sections to the original editor but did not find who had added them. They are at least two years old.Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

he should be mentioned in the list as a member of the knesset i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.81.21 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think 'billionaire' or 'millionaire' are useful designations so have been deleting those terms from the list of notable Mountain Jews.

Compare, for instance: Michael Bloomberg: American billionaire to Mike Bloomberg: American businessman and politician, founder of media company Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg could lose all his money tomorrow, but he'd still have founded his company, been mayor etc. Otherwise we'll need yearly audits.

Dustin Diamond: Television star. Or Dustin Diamond: Actor. Better? You make the call. 67.250.51.204 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Name of this group of Jews comes from the russian "gorskij evrej" that literally translates "highland jew", "mountain jew" translates to russian "gornyj evrej". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.35.62 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mountain Jews populate both Eastern and Northern slopes of Caucasus. Please stop twisting facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.87 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

thanks. 79.182.150.47 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have a question on references for the Mountain Jews population figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Jews Could the author share with me the citations from which he got the figures for the total population in 2004: 150,000 to 270,000 (estimated) Israeli population - 100,000 to 140,000 I appreciate your help. Many thanks,

Hagit Baris, M.D. Medical Geneticist Deputy Director of The Recanati Genetic Institute Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital Petach-Tikva, Israel email: barish@clalit.org.il Phone: 972-3-9377659 Fax: 972-3-9377660 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.146.227 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Guba mass grave is a heavily disputed article. As the article says, the possibility of Jews being among it, and even if the bones are of murdered people at all, are based off the claims of one person who has refused investigations. No foreign experts have examined the human remains, and that no documentary or archival evidence has been presented that mentions a massacre. The section should be removed. --216.125.48.225 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I corrected some grammar and capitalisation mistakes in the lead but I bet there are many more in the article. This article might need a cleanup after all. Jewnited (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Keeping both denominations (and two different links to the same page) seems rather superfluous when there is an existing article on the subject. Trimming an article isn't removing information, curious people can find the synonym at Judeo-Tat. - Olybrius (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but the disruptive user who reverted your edit out of principle never edits talk pages. Their vision is that Wikipedia is not a collaborative project.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree too. (Hope this is sufficient for a consensus.) --Off-shell (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support, I will judeo-tatify once again :) - Olybrius (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

According to the article: "Mountain Jews left Chechnya because of nationalism and kidnappings" is a distortion of reality, because Mountain Jews had good relations with their Chechen neighbors, thus they were not affected by Chechen aspirations for independence. Mountain Jews have left Chechnya because of the commencement of Russo-Chechen war. Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

What I originally wrote in the edit summary: can you corroborate that with a reliable source? El_C 15:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

To expand a bit I'm just interested in you corroborating that removal with a reliable source, because what you are removing is sourced and we have a policy against original research. If what you are saying is true, someone must have been disputing that claim, and making that distinction (i.e. Russo-Chechen war per se.). We are interested in representing reality, but it must be contingent on what reliable published sources say. You can also try to show that those sources are not reliable. But the basis for your effort has to be referenced to something reliable and above all other things, verifiable. Hope all that is making sense to you, and am looking forward to your contributions. El_C 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest neutrality and that's what I have done by reformulating the paragraph. This way we do not mention neither of them (Russians and Chechens), Fair for Jews, Chechens and Russians.Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please read what I wrote carefully. You can't argue neutrality when it is only based on your own original research. Your edit needs to be tied to reliable sources. El_C 16:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have suggested neutrality in order to avoid using true but antagonizing phrases like: Jews left because of Russian invasion and indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population by the Russian army. Source: "American Jewish Year Book, 1998" page 14, line six from the end.Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

We don't care that it's antagonizing, we only care that it is verified. Please stop removing that passage until this matter is resolved(!). You are edit warring. El_C 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have added a source and edited accordingly. Did you read it? Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

But does that book further contain anything that refutes what you are removing? Was the rise of nationalism and kidnapping on the part of militants not a factor? Or are you simply finding it "antagonizing"? Because that would not be good enough. El_C 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It makes the impression that you do not understand, again. "antagonizing" not for me, but might be for Russian readers if it will be quoted from the book that Jews left Chechnya because of "the bloody Russian attack". So I suggest removing the current false paragraph in the article and replace it by simply writing: "Given the marked changes in the 1990s following the dissolution of the Soviet Union many Mountain Jews emigrated to Israel or the United States".Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Even if it is antagonizing for them or you or anyone, we are not here to censor or placate for any reason whatsoever; we are here only to follow what, in all due weight, is verifiable, by citing reliable sources. Unless you show the passage to be false, you can't argue for its removal. Simply citing a source that confirms what we already know but doesn't touch (refutes) the rise of nationalism or kidnapping by militants as being non-factors, is simply not good enough. If it's true—if it's verifiable, then it must stay. El_C 17:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, you conveniently ignore the facts. The article falsely states that Jews left because of "militants", while it ignores the fact that Jews left because of Russian invasion, as stated in the book. It ignores the fact of evacuation due to Russian attack and bombardment of Grozny.Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Then feel free to clarify that point. *** Please do not remove this discussion(!) I'm not even sure why you did it (frustration?)—at any case, that is not permitted, even if you are walking away, which for the sakes of the article I encourage you not to do. El_C 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I was able to implement the changes you asked for, using your source as reference. El_C 21:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Didn't seem to match the numbers of global MJ and there is no reference in the article to a Swiss community. Not to mention that 8 million is about the entire population of Switzerland. Yoweiner (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah if it says that, it's quite obviously false. --Yalens (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Improved since then, it has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:DC82:503:3851:1F2 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mountain Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019111521/http://www.juhuro.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=445 to http://www.juhuro.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=445
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107175732/http://pravo.gov.ru:8080/page.aspx?85818 to http://pravo.gov.ru:8080/page.aspx?85818

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mountain Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150406181555/http://istok.ru/library/jewish-education/history/highland/jews_9811.html to http://www.istok.ru/library/jewish-education/history/highland/jews_9811.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gorskie Yevrey is not right! The first word is plural form, but the second is singular. It's not grammatically correct in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.29.70 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do they really belong here: Tat, Armeno-Tats? Should the recent change get reverted? YCH2277 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Related ethnic groups" should just be retired, period. Actually I thought there was already a discussion that closed in favor of that...--Calthinus (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply