Talk:Bukharan Quarter

Mention of vernacular name (name variations)

@Bukharian: hi. I see that you persist in using an offensive word, and in reverting my edits without explanation. If you looked through the edit history, you must have noticed that I was the one to adapt the Heblish term "Buchari" to English "Bukharan". You finally did what I didn't yet know technically how to do in 2016-17, when I was here last: moved the page from the Heblish "Bukharim Quarter" to the correct English "Bukharan Quarter". You added though "Official name", which is questionable. Eliyak, Yoninah, and mainly Gilabrand, who did most of the work here, are using the Heblish name, which is widely used, even on the very much official Jerusalem Municipality homepage (it doesn't go much more official than that). We both intervened in order to restore the proper English terms, but that doesn't mean to ignore, i.e. not to mention, the name apparently used by most Anglo-Jewish inhabitants, as opposed to scholars and Mandate authorities. I call that reality check.

I very much resent you showing up on this page I've spent quite a bit of time and effort on, and dismissing with an offensive term which is technically out of place, as in: not applying, a very considerate and correct edit, without offering any explanation. Practically, it's against your personal taste, therefore it must be vandalism. It doesn't work this way. Vandalism has a technical meaning on WP. This apart from being tactless, but that goes into civility, where one can start arguing, whereas technical mistakes are black and white.

So please, let it be. You've made your contribution, I've made mine. That's the way WP goes, and it's good so. You wouldn't like Gilabrand calling you names for moving the page, either. See what I mean? Everything can go both ways. Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Good day @Arminden:. Thank you. I really appreciate your sincerity. There is some misinformation going on so I would like to clarify.

The correct Hebrew name is "שכונת הבוכרים," and in English, "Bukharan Quarter."

There is a requirement in Israel to translate names into English and Arabic. Nevertheless, as in common in Israel, often names are not translated correctly into English or Arabic, as is officially required by law. There are numerous examples of such errors, especially between Hebrew and Arabic.

In this particular situation, instead of translating בוכרים to Bukharan, it was transliterated to HaBukharim. This is a common error.

Indeed, many Anglo inhabitants will innocently read HaBucharim Quarter when reading English street signs, nevertheless, this stems from a municipal error, and not from any Heblish dialect.

I hope this helps explain any misunderstanding. Bukharian (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Good day to you too, Bukharian. Please, do read again what I have written: I am aware of each one of these facts. Except that we don't have an "error" here, but a vernacular term, which is part of a lived reality, and that's what an encyclopaedia has to report on, whether it is conform to some local bylaws and guidelines or not; and that Heblish is not a dialect, but a code-switching habit among most English-speakers in Israel. So it's very far from being a dialect, but is a very common thing, which has made it into official places (see the Municipality website, or the very much official Israeli postal stamps, and everything in between). Mind that Israeli traffic law mandates that traffic signs call Jerusalem in Arabic "Urshalim", which is a Christian Arab term not used by the vast majority of Arab-speakers, and have "Al-Quds" only in brackets. So a very biased law that still, in the end, allows reality to seep in (between brackets). Not to mention how little lingvistic laws really do matter in Israel if they're not politically motivated, which then puts a strong lobby behind them. And pushing Heblish or fully Hebrew terms into English is also very much a political project, see "Western Wall", the Hebrew plural for words like kibbutz (some used to apply the English plural, -es), KKL being added to or replacing JNF, "Yerushalayim" popping up in English contexts, street names (Ha-Neviim, Shmuel HaNavi, Melekh George, all having long-established English variants, some actually being first created in English) and many, many other Israel-related terms which are being pushed by the official hasbara institutions. So Bukharim (not HaBukharim, nobody went there) is not a mistake, but both a vernacular term grown out of pragmatism, and the result of Hebrew self-confidence and political push.

Wiki is concerned with reality, and that reflects for instance in each and every Israel-Palestine article, where Israeli laws, UN resolutions, and Palestinian laws and declarations couldn't be more different, and Wiki tries to present them all. Picking and choosing is not the individual editor's right. I am also on some kind of a crusade of combating Heblish as the default way of naming English Wiki articles, but am always trying to leave the information in the lead and add a redirect: users look up terms they read or hear and don't understand, or want more detail on, so ignoring reality isn't an option. Basically we're on the same side, except that I've moved on a step. If you look around, that's the general tendency in the world as well: Chicago schools teaching in African American vernacular as not to leave kids behind who simply don't understand standard English, the BBC having a whole department for Pidgin, Yiddish being treated as a language, not a German dialect as it had been by some for a while, and so forth. Some I'm happy about, some less so, but it's not our job here to fight reality. As an editor you're required to present the "legally required" or linguistically "correct" option, and mention the widespread vernacular one as well, in second place - unless it's really just painfully wrong :)) I hope that clarifies my point of view, which is very much Wikipedia's as well. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Arminden

I would like to elaborate further on HaBukharim Quarter vs The Bukharim Quarter vs The Bucharim Quarter

Street signs read HaBukharim Quarter. As is linguistically logical, an English speaker will naturally replace the "ha-" prefix for the English "the" to seperate the adjective (Bukharim). So, "the Bukharim quarter" is what results.

This is a mistake because it is not the correct English name for the neighborhood. The use of these terms stems from deficient municipal street signs, whatever the reason (although I suspect it is from ignorance of English, I don't see a political motive here).

I would like to present a fair proposal for this issue below.

Bukharian (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section: Etymology or Name

The article mentions a (heblish) variation of the neighborhood name that may be considered incorrect and/or used very limitedly. It may not be appropriate to promote such names with this wiki article, and at the same time, it may not be fitting to completely omit and ignore it.

Because of this, I would like to add a separate section that discusses the names and etymology of the neighborhood. This would be for a description regarding historical names, and variations that may be used presently. Therefore, this article can remain neutral and present all variations, without seeming to promote anything that may be considered deficient or incorrect. Bukharian (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bukharian: Etymology is always good, a change in the lead is definitely not, for reasons plentifully explained above. If the Israel Post is issuing stamps and the Municipality is using the name Bukharim, then it's not a mistake, but intentional and official policy - or at least it's so deeply rooted as not to be a mistake. A mistake is something else. There is nothing more I can add. Best regards, Arminden (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this whole conversation is lame, sorry. To start with, a transliteration of a Hebrew word into English, erroneous or not, is not an example of "Heblish". Heblish is an amalgam of Hebrew and English, usually by mixing words from both languages in a way that makes no sense in either. It is wrong here. The article should mention what other names are commonly used for this neighborhood, preferably with citations, but that's all. Classifying the other names as right or wrong, especially without a source, is not ok. Actually, names that are adopted are never wrong, even if they originate in a mistake. Also add the name Bukhariya (also spelt Bukhariyeh) that was the common English name used during the British mandate. Meanwhile, instead of arguing over names it would be more fruitful to fix the much more severe problems like relying on the eminently unreliable Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The book of Kark and Oren-Nordheim would be a good start. Zero^talk 10:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 I completely agree with you. I cannot find evidence that this is a heblish dialect as apposed to common transliteration. Perhaps, the section should be called "Name" instead of etymology, and variations can be moved down from the intro to such a section? The problem is that leaving the intro as it is now is misleading, and may be used as a source or justification for incorrect usage. Bukharian (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 That is not so. The key word here is code-switching: people who live simultaneously in several languages & cultures often start mixing them. Among the members of the same group, that feels like the only correct way, as some words are typical to one sphere and translating them feels ridiculous, which may or may not lead to a mix that is unintelligible to outsiders. The result "makes no sense in either" language only if the listener is not familiar with both. But think of French: it was so widely spoken among all educated Western people for centuries, that mixing French into any other European language made perfect sense to the educates classes everywhere, as does English nowadays to a certain degree. When less well-known languages are mixed in, yes, that becomes the case, as it is here: Hebrew into English. But transliteration it is not: transliteration is an effort of converting from one script to another, and that would lead to bigger disasters, i.e. Shkhunat HaBukharim or HaBukharim Quarter. There are plenty of Heblish-speakers who "go to the Rova", that is: to the Jewish Quarter, Rova HaYehudi, and are surprised and stammer when asked to say it in English. The result musn't necessarily be laughable or otherwise worthy of contempt, especially if the speakers are able to switch back to the one or other unmixed language. If a group is large enough, such pidgins make perfect sense and some end up creating dialects and languages. Mind that the comments at Heblish re. "poor knowledge of one language or the other or both", and "produced for a consciously humorous effect", are unsourced, POV, and not something to go by. Btw, read any of Nishidani's posts and you'll find words from upwards of three languages in each. Not according to everybody's taste, but to some it comes naturally and it can be great fun if all participants in a discussion know all the codes one switches to and fro. If not, it's pointless and can be bothersome or annoying. It's the whole point of the scattering of languages at the Tower of Babel, verbal communication, and the tragedy & genius of the Salvatore character from The Name of the Rose.

If there wouldn't be postal stamps ("Bukharim"), entries on the Municipality homepage ("Bucharim", "Bukharim"), and street signs, I would see a point in this discussion. As it is though, I don't. If the only point of contention were the term Heblish as such, throw it out; but it's a bigger point, and in one word: it's code-switching, not transliteration.

As to Bukhariya/Bukhariyeh, which is Arabic and I didn't come across, and Kark & Oren-Nordheim: you do have the sources at hand, I don't (didn't even know about the -iye variants), and it's also not my main concern re. this article. I was curious about its history and landmarks. I googled till I became sure that Bukharan is the more common/correct English term (rather than Bukharian, Bucharian, Bucharan) and I've introduced it here. Why Mandate officials called it by an Arabic name, when it was a purely Jewish neighbourhood of people originally from a non-Arabic-speaking region, that's not so thrilling for me now. Spent enough time on this page for my taste. Arminden (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I was asked by friends in Paris in 1983 what I thought of their city, and politely meant to reply that it was 'la cité plus belle du monde.' Unfortunately I had been speaking only Italian for two years and it inflected by phonological crossbreeding my words hilariously. In Italian one would say: 'è la città più bella del mondo.' I mixed the two languages therefore in saying: 'c'est la cité-poubelle du monde' (the world's dustbin city). My gaffe got a laugh, at least from me: my hosts were too polite to protest, but an Alsatian outside the restaurant did come within a nanocentimetre of biting my nose when I stopped to pat it just afterwards.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I wish you would express yourself succinctly instead of writing walls of text. Your reply only mentions the type of language mixing that I identified, and so does Nish's example. Neither you nor Bukharian have provided any association of "Bukharim" with the English language except your own analyses and without a source that's as far as it goes. Zero^talk 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Bukariya", see the official map I put in the article. Also, Ruth Kark and Michal Oren-Nordheim, Jerusalem and its Environs: Quarters, Neighborhoods, Villages 1800–1948 (Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001) page 112 says (about the 1890s) "Kolel houses for the poor of their community were also built in the 'Bukhariyeh' neighborhood, as it was called." There was also a Hebrew variant Rehovot Bukharim which is said in "Carta's Official Guide to Israel" and other sources to be an earlier name and I also have it on a Hebrew map from 1925. Another Hebrew variant was a simple "Rehovot". Adar Arnon, The Quarters of Jerusalem in the Ottoman Period (Middle Eastern Studies, vol 28, No. 1, 1992, 1–63) says "Bukhariyya - the Jewish-Bukharian suburb known in Hebrew as ‘Skhounat Habukharim’ or ‘Rehovot’ (1891) - the area encircled by Bar-Ilan, Shmuel Hanavi, Yehezkel and Zefanya streets." Zero^talk 02:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This article (p156) also supports "Rehovot" and has plenty of other information useful for this article. Zero^talk 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: hi. There are two aspects to all the pages we meet at: today's lived reality; and history. I'm interested in both, you more in the latter. Israel exists. It has millions of inhabitants, and millions of Palestinians, foreign tourists, pilgrims, foreign workers, refugees, who are moving around the country every year and have a living experience there, which often has nothing to do with history, the freakin' conflict, moral issues and the like. They are as much entitled to a Wikipedia with useful information as is any user who only or mainly deals with the subject on a theoretical and distanced level. What was written on city plans in the 1920s-40s is of a far lesser relevance to most users than how it's being called today, whether they want to find their way when visiting, understand a media article, or learn "how the place ticks". As the Bukharan Quarter isn't a place of contention for almost anyone, there is little to learn from Mandate- or Ottoman-time names. Nomen est omen, but here less than elsewhere. I personally do feel enriched by your information, but I wouldn't rush to place it into the article, certainly not as long as the landmarks and main historical events aren't dealt with in far greater detail. No offense, but that's how I see the priorities for an inhabited, non-controversial place that constitutes a moderate tourist attraction. As to me writing walls of text: I'm not on this page by choice, and complete exasperation does lead me to such manifestations. If (the quality of) obvious logic doesn't help, maybe the quantiy of arguments can. Sometimes it does, here it didn't, physics teaches that light waves don't penetrate opaque masses. Arminden (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: History, including name history, is an important and standard part of articles on locations. I will add more history with citations later. Also, readers will take "local vernacular" as referring to the people who live in or near the quarter, but we have no information on what those people call it when speaking English. Better to just say "also known as the Bukharim Quarter" with 2 or 3 citations (17 is excessive). Finally, I agree that "The" doesn't belong in the page title. Zero^talk 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

MFA, JVL source: they both take much of their material from outside sources, often the Enc. Judaica, archaeologists, book authors and alike, not just their own in-house people. So their reliability varies a lot and one needs to check on the source case by case, they cannot be dismissed en bloc. Here it comes from Lili Eylon, who has written the booklet Jerusalem: Architecture in the Late Ottoman Period (Jerusalem: Maor Wallach Press, 1990, part of a "Focus on Israel" series). Haaretz presents her here: "Lili Eylon was the United Nations correspondent for the National Jewish Post and after moving to Israel in 1959, a freelancer for Die Welt and the International Herald Tribune." Looks reliable enough for now. Arminden (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources like JVL and MFA can't be trusted. Even when JVL claims to be quoting reliable sources like EJ they may not be (I've caught them silently inserting their own rubbish into EJ's text). The COI of MFA is obvious. Even though Eylon is cited as author, MFA is a propaganda outlet and may have edited her words. Reliable sources become unreliable if our only access to them is via an unreliable intermediary. Zero^talk 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thanks for the suggested better wording, I just want to leave in at least a hint to the fact that this is a Hebrew-influenced name useful "locally", i.e. in Jerusalem or Israel. About Eylon cited by MFA: again, there's nothing controversial here, those reservations apply when the topic is controversial. Altogether, thank you, I will be cautious on other topics.

In general: we're not writing a post-doctoral thesis here. Especially when the topic is neutral and not very important, making the effort of finding and studying academic sources as opposed to the media stands in no correlation to the gain. As I've said before: the 80-20 rule. And the danger of editors writing for editors, of becoming irrelevant. Most people I'm talking to don't want to hear what I know about these topics. See Britannica online: they're not having Oxford professors write anymore either. I keep on postponing real life matters of high priority while getting caught on minor stuff here, which I cannot bring myself to ignore. I'll do what I can, and I'll always appreciate you amending the text or adding a more academic approach.

History & name history might be important, but nobody calls it Rehoboth or Rehovot anymore. Not sure anyone other than Kark knows that it's ever been called that way, and now you & me. Wager doesn't write when it came out of use. As to the 17 sources: I'll happily remove most or all once our friend here decides to let go. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Bukharim Quarter" - a Heblish Dialect? ( or rather a transliteration)

Is there any evidence to support that the usage of "the Bukharim Quarter" is a "Heblish dialect," as the article currently suggests, as opposed typical transliteration? "The Bukharim Quarter" may be used by some, but I cannot find evidence of this being part a separate dialect. This seems to be a sort of sensationalism and may not be appropriate in this article. @Arminden: @Zero0000: Bukharian (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

this is getting ridiculous. Can you read? Homestly, can you read? Or: are you willing to read?

What is ambiguous about what I wrote? Here:

"Heblish is not a dialect, but a code-switching habit among most English-speakers in Israel. So it's very far from being a dialect, but is a very common thing, which has made it into official places (see the Municipality website, or the very much official Israeli postal stamps"

And now you want to "contradict" my "argument" that Bukharim is a "Heblish dialect"? We have nothing to talk about, as this is like two people shouting into two diverging, buried & skew line pipes. Arminden (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

God bless you @Arminden:. I wish you much health and happiness and success in your endeavors. With all due respect, I can't find any evidence to support that Bukharim is not a simple transliteration (as is common), as opposed to "heblish". In fact, I could even suggest it is "Yeshiva-English" just as well. There are many English-speaking Yeshiva students there that may be the major proponents of this vernacular in real life. I think the best thing to do here is to remove references to heblish, and keep all variants (historical and present) in a separate name section. Bukharian (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bukharian: The next revert move goes straight to arbitration. Arminden (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden:, I think Zero is correct that at most, the article should simply say "also known as the Bukharim Quarter," without anything additional. Arminden, you are fabricating a theory (heblish;local vernacular; now, Israeli vernacular...) which is ridiculous.

You also removed references to HaBukharim Quarter, which is how municipal signs show. You are being unfair.

"Ha'Bukharim quarter" is not a translation but a transliteration. Nevertheless, is it often used instead of the translation. This a mistake, and this is a quite common mistake, where names are not translated but transliterated and used in English. As @Zero0000: requested, here [1] is a source for such mistakes being common.

Further, "The Bukharim Quarter" is a direct extension of "Ha'Bukharim Quarter," and this is expected. Why? This is because whenever there is an "article-name" combination in Hebrew, the "ha-" prefix is dropped and "the" is added.

Consider names that are not translated but always transliterated. Although they are transliterated, the "ha-" prefix is always, nevertheless, translated. הכרמל Ha'Carmel. Becomes "the Carmel" (market) האצ"ל Ha'Etzel. Becomes "the Etzel" (junction) -similarly- הבוכרים Ha'Bukharim. Becomes "the Bukharim" (quarter)

Please note that the name "the Bukharim Quarter" always begins with "the," and is a reference to the Hebrew prefix "Ha-" You conveniently omitted "the" in your article edit, although it is not found without that word. Check your sources to confirm.

HaBukharim should not have been removed. "The" should precede "Bukharim Quarter." And there shouldn't be any mention of this being part of any dialects, code switching, vernaculars, a long running municipal mistake, etc... Let's be neutral. Thank you again my friend. Bukharian (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bukharian: It isn't clear what you want. If you want "the" in the name of the article, that is not the usual naming rule (consider United States of America even though the official name of the country has "The"). If you want "the Bukharim Quarter" instead of just "Bukharim Quarter" in the first sentence, you are correct but not because of the Hebrew article; you are correct because it is an English sentence and "the" is required before "X Quarter" in almost all cases. I will add it. I will also remove "Israeli vernacular" since a large number of Arminden's examples are not Israeli. Zero^talk 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thank you. Yes, I meant "the Bukharim Quarter" instead of just "Bukharim Quarter" and not the title of the article. There should also be mention of "HaBukharim Quarter" as most street signs show.

If there is a reason offered to the etymology, it should strictly be a reference to this being a transliteration. Besides for the support I have already provided. It is possible to see an exact parallel in the Arabic, supporting this being anything but a common transliteration. Note that in Arabic it is spelled "hayy ha'buukharim." al "buukharim" is obviously not an Arabic word. There is an superfluous waw and the suffix is not Arabic. "Bukharim" is a Hebrew transliteration, not an Arabrew dialect, Israeli vernacular, Arab vernacular, or local vernacular, etc... [2]

Bukharian (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The editors Bukharian and the anonymous 68.107.247.210 have introduced interesting details, or removed some, without offering sources. According to Bukharian, some of the original inhabitants came from Azerbaijan and Georgia - 68.107.247.210 has removed those places. Bukharian has mentioned Iran - 68.... specified a city: Meshad. The fact that the current inhabitants are primarily Ashkenazi and Ultra-Orthodox, as well as the list of neighbouring city quarters, are easy to know or notice, but are also prsented w/o a source. Unfortunately, none of this material can be accepted as fact as long as it's not supported by a reliable source. Who wants to put in the time & effort? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gilabrand, Shmuliko, and Ynhockey: hi. Maybe one of you? Anyone else you'd like to ping? Arminden (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem map by neighbourhoods needed

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#Map by neighbourhoods needed. Arminden (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)