Talk:Crimean Karaites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not quite correct...

(This initial section was moved from Talk:Karaims at 18:53, 30 August 2012‎ by User:Toddy1 "Not quite correct" referred to the idea of subsuming Karaims under Karaite Judaism. Kaz 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

It's somehow incorrect to merge the Karaims page to the Karaite judaism as long as there is a Karaims community in the East Europe believing they are derived from the Turkic Khazars.

They should be named as they wish, the Karaims, and the rest of them should be named, those who hold a belief in their Jewish origin, as the Karaites.

In addition, presently the remained Karaims and the Lithuanian muslim Tatars of the Nogay origin hold together even buring their dead ones in the same cemeteries.

The first ones have spoken 'karaylarin kendi tatarca gibi dil' while the Tatars have kept Muslim belief while they have given up their original 'Nogay tatarcasi' for a long time ago, and adapted to local languages.

On the other hand, I doubt if the mainstream Jews recognise the Karaims as the keepers of the original belief as those wish.

So, in this regards there might be schisms underway in the both spheres, within the Karaims/Karaites and between them and the 'rabbanite' jews.

But I don't quite know how the things develop further on.

Maybe the Karaims and Jews themselves ought to commenent on this matter.--BIR 06:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Salem BIR, thank you for inviting the opinion of the Karaims. Because of our historic and religions aversion to writing anything down it is very difficult to find references about what Karaims actually believe. Yet, at least there is enough written to confirm that Karaims and Karaite Jews are antithetically opposed to each other. In fact, Karaims are much closer in our Mosaism to Orthodox Jews than to [[Karaite Jews] despite differences like belief in the prophets like Christ and being required to follow the name of Muhammad with salallahu aleihi wasalam, so you can start to get an idea of just how different we (Karaims) are! For us the word Karaim is a singular adjective which is made plural in various ways depending upon language. It refers to the followers of the clerics who are called Karaylar claiming as Khazars descent from Attila. Meanwhile Qaraim is already a plural word for Karaite Jews. For Karaims the word Midrash refers to a Madrasah where (as in the Islamic system) they study, while this is foreign to the Jews. Apart from the clergy, Karaims are not required to be circumcised, nor observe any of the Torah laws of Moses beyond what is specified for pilgrims. Our word for God is Tenri whom we usually refer to as Allah and the more I write trhe more you will see how unique we are. Basically Karaims are not Karaite Jews, but a Turkic people (Kypchaks) who follow an Islamized from of Mosaism as a result of the Islamic conversion of the Khazars who had previously been attracted to Rabbinical forms of Mosaism. For this reason it is better to distinguish Turkic Karaites very clearly from Karaite Jews. Kaz 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Y'all, I do think this page should be redirected to the Karaite Judaism page. The subject of the surviving Eastern European Karaims is an intersting one.

As we know, during the inquisition, it was not unheard of for Jews to deny they were such. This is what happened in pre-Communist Russia, they were external rumors which succesfully lifted most of the anti-semetic laws in effect at that time. Unfortunately, when religion was banned by communism these rumors were taught as truth to many of the karaims, however many retained knoweledge of their Jewishness. If the belief of some of the European Karaims is the objection to the merge, I hope what I wrote will satisfy that objection. I will make some changes to the Karaite Judaism page after Shabbat, and if the changes satisfy everyone I will then have this page redirect to Karaite Judaism.--Josiah 00:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As long as they're NPOV and attributed. Jayjg 04:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit to being a little confused why 'Kaz', who states himself as being part of an existent Turkic Karaite community, seems to be largely ignored here. From what I understand, conflating Karaite Judaism with Turkic Karaites would be similar to conflating Islam with Christianity simply because of a common ancestry, reverence of and reference to Jesus, and other historical associations. It doesn't matter whether some here disagree with how Kaz's community identify themselves. Surely the least contentious but still academically rigorous position would be to allow for a separate header for a referenced article on Turkic Karaites with a neutral description of how the community self-identifies and then another referenced entry with 'historical controversies' or somesuch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Hubert (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice the dates of the comments preceding yours Marek which were brought here from the Karaims discussion page by Toddy1. They are from the time when this article was first moved from the Karaims page 8 years ago. They should not have been brought into this discussion as they simply confuse the issue even more. Kaz 07:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

^{(NB Between 23:19, 6 October 2004 and 03:35, 30 March 2005 this article was merged with Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Karaimi_.28Qaraylar.29 until the merge decision was decided against but instead of being restored to the original Karaims location, this new article was created without moving the Karaims page to Crimean Karaites. Kaz 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC))}

Disputed

Why do you think that "Karaites are a sect of Judaism" ? This seems strongly POV and should not be in encyclopedia, which should limit itself to non-disputed facts. Lysy 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

• Please see the article Karaite. I have never heard any serious person dispute the fact that Karaism is a sect of Judaism. Karaites themselves refer to their religion as true Judaism and regard rabbinic Jews as having been led astray. To say that Karaism is a form of Jewish observance is not POV. As to the genetic descent of the Eastern European Karaites from Jewish ancestors as opposed to various Turkic groups, the controversy is discussed in this article and has no bearing on whether Karaism is or is not a Jewish sect. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Shalom Brian, although we can not use wikipedia articles as a source, you are very kind and your comments are appreciated, but there are many who have disputed that our religion is a sect of Judaism in the same way they dispute messianic Jews are real Jews. However, only Karaite Jews refer to their religion (Karaite Judaism) as true Judaism and regard rabbinic Jews as having been led astray. But Karaism on the other hand is not a form of Jewish observance. There are two conflicting points of view among Jews towards us. One point of view is a very strictly halakhic point of view which regards us as Jews just because our clergy is dedicated to upholding all the mitzvot of Torah. The political Jewish point of view however does not currently consider us as Jewish and neither does it count our religion as a branch of Judaism. I can understand both points of view. In religion we might better be considered as a branch of the ancient Assyrian church of the East or one of the non-mainstream Mohammedan/Quranic sects rather than as a sect of Judaism. But at the same time our clergy at least certainly do fit into the Halakhic point of view in being extremely strict in Torah observance. But Lysy is right that these are the opinions of outsiders concerning us and do not reflect what we ourselves have always believed. Our greatest Hakams in recent centuries, Babovich, Firkovich, and Shapshal, went to very painstaking efforts to clarify with the Tsarist and Nazi authorities that Karaim are Khazars, not Jews, even though we do have a fully Torah observant clergy (which as you point out Brian can indeed be considered Jewish but only from a strictly and non-political Halakhic point of view). Kaz 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the central/eastern European Karaites (the Karaims) do not confirm that they are a sect of Judaism. Shall we respect them, or "do we know better" ? --Lysy (talk) 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Thank you Lysy.Kaz 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion would come as a big surprise to many Karaim who do regard themselves as Karaite Jews. It is not borne out either by the sources, the Karaite religious practices or by DNA studies. The sources cited in the article not only discuss the issue but the article also refers to the works of such extremists as Firkovitch who sought to eliminate the inherent Jewishness of the Karaites. --Briangotts 5 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Although your attack on Firkovitch will not be appreciated by any Karaim worth their salt, the general fraternal embrace concerning us is sincerely appreciated Brain. However, the only Karaim who would regard us as Karaite Jews would be those who don't really know what the religion of "Karaite Judaism" requires. When I first saw the term "Karaite Jews" and "Karaite Judaism" I thought they were about my own beloved Karaim and Karaism too but I soon discovered that Karaite Jews unlike Karaim do not believe in the prophet-hood of Christ, nor Muhammad (s.a.w.), when I noticed that they (Karaite Jews) unlike the practice of our own Karaite Hakams do not say salallahu alayhi wasalam after mentioning these prophets. Similarly, the mainly Egyptian Karaite dominated Moetzet Hakhamim of Karaite Judaism based in Israel do not recognise us as belonging to the same religion unless we convert on one of their Karaite Jewish University programs. Moreover, Karaim are not allowed to make Aliyah into Israel while Egyptian Karaite Jews are. Our Karaite Synagogue in the old town in Jerusalem has recently been taken over by Egyptian Karaites much to our distress and for the first time in 1000 years the Turkish Karaim do not have any permanent base in Israel. Concerning the DNA studies, you are correct there is similarity because Khazars shared the same Seljuk E-M34 Haplogroup (a branch of the Palestinian E-M123 Haplogroup) now common among Jews as a result of conversions from the Karaim of Greater Hungary when under the Austro-Hungarian Empire they came into contact with the Talmudic Jews of Central Europe who had been settled there long before our arrival.Kaz 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing Karaims with Karaites ? Many people do. This particluar article is about Karaims, which are just a group of Karaites. Ignoring this and claiming that they are all Jewish makes the article highly biased. Since Karaims of East Europe say that their religion is not Judaism, you cannot just impose it upon them because someone other believes so. It is each person's right to define his identity. As you seem to insist to retain the Judaism label on Karaims, I would like the article to clearly state that it presents just one point of view and it's not that of Eastern European Karaims. --Lysy (talk) 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Lysy thank you for understanding the important difference between Karaite Jews and Karaim, although you use different terms you have basically hit the nail on the head here, and it is good you introduced two terms to make the distinction. However, the term Karaims is has not been used by scholars concerning us, the terms Karait and Karaite have usually used but not Karaite Jews. Sadly our religious artefacts have been described as Jewish rather than Karait whenever found in archaeological digs, and the case is the same with the religion of the Khazars. Muslims call us Muslim, Jews call us Jews, Christians call us Nestorians, the soviets would have rather that we simply did not exist, everyone writes about us but no one lets us speak for ourselves. At least I think anyone can agree that one really needs to be aware of all the facts while reading about things pertaining to Turkic so-called "Jews" in Eastern Europe to be able to discern carefully whether Karaim are meant or Krymchaks are meant. But thankfully at least there have never historically been any Karaite Jews in Eastern Europe to confuse the issue until the recent conversions began. Karaite Jews generally hate our Hakams like Shapshal and Firkovich, althopugh we don't always hate theirs. However, this article does successfully confuse the issue.Kaz 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure I'm not confused. Karaites are a subset of Judaism. Karaim are practitioners of Karaism from a specific region. I know many Karaim that consider themselves Jews. Now, to the extent that certain people have attempted to minimize the connection between Karaim and world Jewry, that aspect is discussed in this article as well as in such others as Simcha Babovitch and Abraham Firkovitch. You still have not cited one scholarly source that states that Karaim have no connection to Judaism. To say that they do is not POV, it is simply a fact. With all due respect, this is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of any individual's opinion of the connection between one people and another. --Briangotts 6 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong Brian, I am certain I speak for the majority of Karaim still aware of our identity that it is heart-warming when Jews do consider us as part of their family, and indeed we are not all of us Nazis, just because we believe in Christ and the Quran, as less generous Jewish authors have at times tried to depict us as. I really do appreciate your kind and embracing brotherliness in this regard. Indeed your warmth is nothing new in history and even the medieval Jews used to consider us as their brethren when they wrote about our ancient Khazar Kaghanate. Sadly it is also a fact that because of our beliefs, the modern state of Israel and Egyptian Karaite dominated Moetzet Hakhamim in Israel has rejected us and has made it impossible for us to make Aliyah without full conversion to either Orthodox Judaism or to Karaite Judaism. So we are sometimes considered Jews and sometimes not depending upon whether it suites the interests of those writing about us. As a result many of us are upset when people simply call us Jews. Absolutely many of the Seljuk E-M34 Haplogroup Jews descend from us and the falling away of Karaim to orthodox Judaism is not an insignificant issue through the centuries, excessive racist propaganda against Jews of Khazar ancestry has made most of them want to pretend it does not exist and this is understandable, but if only we are given a chance we can show that we are not scary Anunaki reptilian Grey aliens they depict us as (believe it or not I had to explain this to a grown man called Bob just yesterday who was making racist comments about me as I was walking by because as a member of the Karaim clergy I wear the יאַרמולקע).Kaz 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, you'll see that this is an extension of a discussion he and another editor have been having with regard to Trakai. I think that discussion also reveals a lot about the source of Lysy's protests about this article. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

No, I have not claimed that no Karaim is Jewish. Therefore the fact that there are Karaims who consider themselves to be Jews does not prove anything here. Since you know some Karaims who consider themselves Jewish and I know some others who do not, it seems inappropriate to label *all* Karaims as a Jewish community in the article. As for the sources of my opinion, it's not my original research, but the works of Prof. Ananiasz Zajączkowski, both on Karaim religion and language, one of the simpliest of them being Zarys Religii Karaimskiej, Podkowa Leśna, 1946. Also, User:DariusMazeika has contacted Lithuanian Karaims Culture Community and their representative confirmed the statement. This is also confirmed on http://www.karaimi.org/ , the web page of Polish Karaim Union. You could also take a look at http://daugenis.mch.mii.lt/karaimai/index_en.htm for information in English language. What may be true for Karaites in America or Israel does not have to be a universal truth. As it is apparent that the article in its current shape contains statements that are disputed and you seem unwilling to negotiate neither change nor removal of the controversial statement until the discussion is settled, I'm labelling it as disputed to inform potential readers of the controversy. Hopefully this will help to improve the article and make it less biased in short time. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

http://daugenis.mch.mii.lt/karaimai/history.htm states that the name of the religion became the name of the ethnicity. Karaim are Karaites, in Ashkenazic Hebrew, from קראים ... How anyone can use that site to justify saying there's a dispute about whether or not the Karaim are Jews and their religion a form of Judaism is beyond me, unless they simply have a poor grasp of English or a poor grasp of who is a Jew and who isn't. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 03:07 (UTC)

E.g. take a look at the very beginning of the same page that you quote: From linguistic and ethnogenetic point of view they belong to the oldest Turkish tribes - Kipchaks. (...) Anthropologically ancient Kipchaks were very close to Siberia inhabitants Dinlins, who lived on both sides of the Sajan Mountains - in Tuva and northern part of Gob. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is relevant there. Because they're descendants of Kipchaks they can't be Jews? It might interest you to learn that there are actually two groups descended from the Kipchaks who are Jewish: the Karaims, who are Karaites, and the Krymchaks, who are Rabbanites. Regardless of their origin, their religion is a form of Judaism, therefore they are Jews. There religion has far more in common with rabbinical Judaism than Ethiopian Jews' does, yet you haven't gone and slapped a {{disputed}} tag on that article yet. Why not? Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

There is neither doubt nor scholarly dispute that Karaism is a form of Judaism. In the 19th century a number of Karaites, primarily in Russia, began denying their Jewish heritage, and asserting various other origins, which allowed them to avoid various anti-Jewish Russian decrees. This trend was strengthened by Nazi policies, which tended to classify Karaites as non-Jews. However, this is irrelevant to the origins of Karaism, as a Jewish denomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I think User:Lysy believes I am confusing Karaite Judaism as a religion with Qaraylar who he believes forms a totally distinct group. He seems to vew the Qaraylar relationship with Karaite Judaism to be "some Qaraylar are Karaite Jews" when in fact Qaraylar are the descendents of Karaite Jews who happen to live in Eastern Europe. Lysy believes that I am confusing the issue. I assure him that I am not. The distinct, Turkic-speaking Karaites of the Crimea and Eastern Europe are one branch of the Karaite community. The fact that under pressure from Russian and Nazi authorities, some Karaites renounced their connection to the Jewish people is regrettable, but irrelevant. --Briangotts 7 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

As the Nazi pressure to renounce Jewishness is much relaxed since the end of World War II, I do not see why do they continue to claim that they are not Jewish then ? It's not for me to judge who is right here, but obviously there exist two contradictory POVs and a NPOV article should not be supporting only one of them. At least it has to be clearly stated that there exist other views and research that denies the theories presented. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Agreed. Lysy's POV-pushing here is beginning to sound pretty trollish, and his slapping the "disputed" tag on the article is, in that light, verging on vandalistic. The link he added at the same time as the disputed tag does nothing to support his view, in fact it completely undermines it. Either he's a troll, or he just doesn't understand English very well. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 21:34 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a breakdown in communications, but we are left with a disputed tag on an article that is about as uncontroversial as they get. What can be done to remove the tag? --Briangotts 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I vote "yes". Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Tomer, your voting about the "dispute" tag is out of place here, as are your personal attacks and accusations of trollism and vandalism. That's not the way to reach consesnus. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

No, my vote was pretty clearly "tongue in cheek". I did not make any personal attacks against you or anyone else. I also think it's pretty clear that among everyone but you, consensus has long since been reached. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Maybe without realising it, but you've just done it again. First you've suggested that my view is invalid because I'm a troll and vandal. Now you're suggesting that it's invalid because "among everyone but you" the consensus has been reached. That's hardly any dispute on the merit but just an attempt to bully your opponent. In other words, you are attacking the person making the claim instead the claim itself. It's not offensive, yet still a personal attack that I consider not constructive. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

I have not attempted to "bully" you, I'm simply pointing out that you're the only one who thinks this is disputed, although it appears DariusMazeika would probably agree with you. I did not say your view is invalid because you're a troll and a vandal, I said you were beginning to sound trollish, because you were forcibly pushing a specific POV in the face of strong consensus that you have yet to demonstrate is anything other than your POV. After that I said you were either a troll or that your English isn't very good. I've since concluded it's just that there are things about English that you don't understand, and things about Judaism and the meaning of "Jew" that you fail to grasp. I did not call you a vandal, I said that your slapping the {{disputed}} tag on the article, in light of the behavior I had already at that time described as "beginning to sound pretty trollish", was "verging on vandalistic". What you're doing now, is attempting to delegitimize everything I say by mischaracterizing what I have said. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

If Lysy insists he disputes the contents, then he should be allowed to leave the tag on for a few more days. On the other hand, if the debate develops no further, it can certainly be removed after a couple of weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be happy to have the tag removed it there's no further discussion or other progress within next 2 weeks or so. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Look, I 100% understand where Lysy is coming from. The fact of the matter is that many of the Turkic-speaking Crimean/Eastern European Karaites (that's a pretty clumsy but necessary clarifier) historically distanced themselves from being called "Jews" in a way that other Karaites did not. But this was a phenomenon created as a response to external pressure and is one that is discussed both here and in related articles. The fact of the matter is that one can be Jewish because one practices Judaism the religion, or one can be Jewish because one is a genetic descendent of the Jewish people. On the first count, there is no question that the Qaraylar practice Karaite Judaism pretty much indistinguishable from the Karaism practiced by other Karaite communities, such as those in Egypt and the Middle East. On the second point, genetic testing has proved that the Qaraylar are genetically connected with other Jewish communities to a greater extent than to the Crimean Tatars and other Turkic people that folks like Abraham Firkovitch tried to connect them to. I don't doubt that some Qaryalar deny they are Jewish, but there are Ashkenazim and Sephardim who do the same. We wouldn't put a disputed tag on Ashkenazi because some Ashkenazim deny their Jewishness; I think it would be equally ludicrous to do so here. So that's my position. --Briangotts 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

How about mentioning in the article that: The Turkic-speaking Crimean/Eastern European Karaites distance themselves from Jewishness then ? Let me try this and you can always remove the sentence if you find it not true or otherwise offensive. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

I changed it (twice), once to remove "turkic speaking", since that is established in the previous sentence, and the second time to reflect the reason why, as well as the fact that their having done so was not a universal thing. Those Karaim in Israel, for example, do not attempt at all to distinguish themselves as non-Jewish, simply as non-Rabbanites. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 19:07 (UTC)

I shuffled the first couple of sentences around for better clarity (put all the stuff about nomenclature in one paragraph, then the stuff relating to this dispute at the end of the header. Is this ok with everyone? --Briangotts 8 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I'm ok with everything except your attrocious grammar, which I've fixed.  :-p Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Sorry, me no write so good the English when come Friday Afternoon. Me ready weekend. --Briangotts 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad...Sheppard Smith just said that Hurricane Dennis just "speeded up". Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 19:55 (UTC)

At least he didn't say it "speeded down". ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Where did Lysy go? Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 20:23 (UTC)

You asked for me ? Here I am :-)
The sentences:

• For political reasons, some Crimean Karaites have tried to distance themselves from being identified as Jews.
• The reasons for and historical background of this movement are discussed below.

are now POVish again. Past tense is used, and the reasons are judged, showing no respect for these people and their self-identification. Can we keep at least this small part neutral ? I would suggest it to be phrased in an uncontroversial way and without any judgement added:

• The Turkic-speaking For political reasons, some Crimean Karaites have tried to distance themselves from being identified as Jews.
• The reasons for and historical background of this movement are discussed below.

The second sentence was superfluous, as it's apparent that everything from the preamble is discussed further in the article and we don't need to stress it here. How about that ? --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

"The Turkic-speaking" is still redundant, as it's established in the previous sentence. "Some" is not POV, it's simply a reflection of the fact that the 10,000+ Karaims living in Israel do not claim to not be Jews. "have tried to" is not POV, it's simply a reflection of the fact that, even the Nazis who decided they could be permitted to live, still regarded them with disdain because of their religion, which they classified as "mosäisch", a less naziesque way of saying "jüdisch". If they classified them as "jüdisch", they'd have been slaughtered with the rest of the Jews, so the ploy to get them classified as non-Jews worked. That doesn't mean that they're not Jews, just that they've distanced themselves from being identified as Jews. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

They have distanced themselves and they still do. How about simply: Karaims of Central and Eastern Europe distance themselves from being identified as Jews. ? This does not imply whether they are Jewish or not, just states the undisputed fact that they do not consider themselves Jewish so it sounds pretty neutral to me. --Lysy (talk) 8 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that this is true for all Karaims other than a woman from a cultural center (note: there is no evidence that this woman is even involved in the religious community) based entirely on a phone conversation someone else told you they'd had with her? Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 22:04 (UTC)

That proposed language is unacceptable to me. I have done my best to negotiate the wording in good faith, but this latest proposal is factually misleading for the reasons I have stated above repeatedly. As Tomer points out, it's not based on any source other than word of mouth. --Briangotts 9 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

That's a pity, I can say the same, as I did not even propose the stronger wording like "are not Jewish" but only "distance themselves" which I thought you already accepted and does not need to be disputed again. As to the sources, it's not only word of moutn as I've mentioned also written sources above, alas in Polish, so you'll probably say they are not credible ? Could I ask you for yet one more attempt to read the sentence as I proposed it and more specifically point out like to an idiot, what do you find untrue or inacceptable there ? Do you know any Karaims of Central/Eastern Europe who claim they are Jewish or not ? --Lysy (talk) 9 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

Lysy, it is a well-known fact that the Karaites are considered to be Jewish. So, what we're going to do here is to wait for you to provide references from independent journals and books that state that the Karaites aren't Jews. The sources you mentioned only reflect a part of the Karaites, which would only warrant a subsection in the article discussing whether or not that part of the Karaites consider themselves to be Jewish, and why. This has already been done, so you should be happy. I will remove that POV-ish POV tag.--Wiglaf 20:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf, it's not been a POV tag, but "Disputed" tag and as such should have not been arbitrarily removed by one side of the dispute until this is settled. I'm sorry to see that you've completely not related yourself to the solution I proposed but have chosen to solve the dispute forcibly instead. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I sincerely believe I'm not being understood, therefore let me state the situation in few simple points. Please do relate to them now before you decide to remove the "disputed" tag again.

1. I do not state whether all of the Karaims are Jewish or not - it's the matter of POV.
2. Some Karaims (those in Lithuania and Poland at least) believe they are not Jews - from the discussion above I believe this is not being questioned (that they do believe so).
3. I would not like to get into details on whether they are right or not, this is a matter of POV again, as well as why do they believe so.

I would like to maintain the clear statement of (2) within the article and avoid the POV statements of (1) and (3) or clearly state that they present one point of view (Jewish) only. When you ask for independent journals and books, I undestand that you discredit my sources as dependent (on what?). What exactly do you mean by independent sources: Jewish or non-Jewish authors ? --Lysy (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The sources I have seen have been from Lithuania. I am married into a Jewish family, from Eastern Europe, and I know that many of them have denied their being Jewish (even though one still does so, she looks very proud every time Jews are mentioned). They have done so simply to survive and to get along with non-Jews. So your links do not impress me the least in this matter. I suggest you quote non-East European sources concerning these people's Jewishness.--Wiglaf 21:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, I am sorry for using the wrong term about the tag.--Wiglaf 21:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, but have you read what I just wrote above ? I'm not claiming that they are not Jewish (#1 above). Why would you want me to provide sources for something that I do not claim ? I've only said that they do distance themselves from their Jewishness (#2 above), and I see you agree with me on this, right ? --Lysy (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The Crimean Karaites who accept Mohammed as a prophet do not consider themselves to be part of Judaism. However, the Crimean Karaites who don't accept Mohammed, etc. DO consider themselves to be part of Judaism. Instead of debating about it amongst yourselves, why don't you ask them directly at the Karaylar Yahoo! group?--Josiah 02:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. If you have the patience to read all the dispute above (which I doubt :-), you'll see that Karaims of Trakai in Lithuania have been asked directly, but their response was then rejected as a "word of mouth". They are a relatively small community and their voice will definitely be weak, but their existence should not be completely ignored just because of this. --Lysy (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Lysy, is that the woman to whom your friend told you he had spoken was from the cultural center, and no evidence was provided that she has any connection with or knowledge of the views of the community with regard to their religious or cultural connection or relationship with Jews. It, therefore, carries as much weight as idle gossip about whether or not Michael Jackson's feet are white or black. She may very well be the Chacham's wife, but for all we know, she's the cleaning lady. Tomer ^TALK 17:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The response I gave earlier is based upon the discussions I've had with Crimean Karaim in the past. It used to be a topic of interest to me, as I once affiliated with Karaism. Now, however, the World Karaite Movement is trying to distance any relations between Crimean Karaim (who don't affiliate with Judaism, who do accept Mohammed, etc.) and the Karaites (who only accept the Tanakh, do affiliate as Jews and with Judaism, etc.)--Josiah 00:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It seems, that someone is trying to voice Karaims with ideas they do not associate with. I believe, that the woman I have talked with HAS the right knowledge and respect in local community of Karaims, because her telephone number was given to me by municipality of Trakai official. I have checked who is this person on google, too: [[1]]. According to references, she definetly has the right of defining who the Karaims are. So this point of view of Lithuanian Karaims' should be treated with respect. Also I disagree with the passage "Catholic missionaries made serious attempts to convert the local Karaims into Christianity, but ultimately were largely unsuccessful" - this is false for Lithuanian Karaims, I have cross checked this several times before - there are no facts or clues on this, so please check your sources, too. Also, I dislike the retrospective emphasis on the articles related to Karaims - all articles ignore Karaims in present time. You know, they do not seem to me like dinosaurs or species marked for extintion for me - they have very rich traditions preserved and active cultural life even today. DariusMazeika 19:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not say the woman was unqualified to speak for the community, I said that her qualification to do so could not be ascertained, although it seems that she is qualified. She is apparently one of the 3 (according to Ethnologue) remaining active speakers of Karaim in Lithuania. As for the missionaries business, I have no idea where that came from. That said, I too dislike the fact that there's little discussion of the modern Karaim. This is because the only sources available are a couple of websites which, like too many other Qara'i sites, spend more time engaging in polemics against Rabaniim than in spreading useful information, as well as the fact that the small community remaining in Lithuania is still subject to pressures of the גלות that distinguish it and the nature of its identity vis à vis Jews and Jewishness, that are not present in Israel, which has over 20k Karaim. In Israel, the Karaim do not claim to not be Jews, they simply claim that their religion is not Judaism. This is simply the same thing that was heard from the Rabbanites of the 10th century who declared Qaraאiyuת to not be Judaism. Tomer ^TALK 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know many Israeli Karaites who would be offended at the very suggestion that they weren't Jewish or that their religion wasn't Judaism. Have you ever been to their synagogue in Ashdod or Jerusalem? I can assure you that they would staunchly defend their jewishness if you visited those synagogues. User:Neria is a Karaite Jew who lived in Israel, and the grandson of one of their Hakhamim. He'd also tell you that he is a Jew.--Josiah 00:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm happy to end the dispute and remove the tag with the recent wording suggested by Briangotts. Thank you for your time, everyone. --Lysy (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Tomer ^TALK 17:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites call ourselves Karaylar, we are not known as Crimean Karaites, and we are not just in Crimea, moreover we are not Jews, we are Tatars, finally We do not practice Karaite Judaism, we have a Torah based religion but just like Subbotniki our religion is not exactly the same as Karaite Judaism. We believe in Christ and Muhammad (S.A.W.) and only our priests are circumcised. Thank you.81.103.120.143 (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) This article is a very good introduction to who we are http://www.karaite-korner.org/holocaust.htm many thanks. 81.103.120.143 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said.Kaz

Critics of current revision of articles related to Karaites/Karaims

The more I read this article, the more I dislike, because it looks very biased and ignorant. The problem points I want to point out:

1. The article is trying to instill that Karaims are Jews. Despite facts about Lithuanian Karaims, proposed by User:Lysy have been included, article still makes implication, that Karaims are Jews. However, there is no consensus regarding this in academic world. There are multiple studies conducted arround the world. Most of studies conducted by Jewish researchers or Jewish funded researches maintain, that Karaims are Jews. On the other hand, msot studies conducted by independent researchers not related to Karaims or Jews (Lithuanian, Polish, Italian) do not confirm this. See [[2]].
2. I still have to see a good argumentation for statements in many Karaite related articles, which insist, that Karaim religion is a sect of Judaism. The ties between Karaim and Karaite religions have been lost for several ages already. Why not tell that Christianity or even better, Islam, is a sect of Judaism, too? Religion is about self identity, and not about beliefs or interpretations by the outsiders - so there no space for labels like this.
3. The article is too retrospective. When I read it, it sounds like propaganda, not like an informative article, based on facts. Many statements are are not neutral, but rather critic and tries to represent Karaites like a group of people with lost identity, contrary to all evidence stating otherwise: they still preserved their language and traditions (N.B., that their language and traditions are unknown in Jewish culture, and this fact is ignored and discounted, because it is not favouring Karaims = Jews hypothesis)
4. Historic facts are disregarded and mangled, with little and no argumentation and sources specified. Karaim resetlement to Lithuania and Poland have been documented very well in chronicles - these documents do not favour the current implication of the article, too. The sources are inaccurate and biased, like this passage "Catholic missionaries made serious attempts to convert the local Karaims into Christianity, but ultimately were largely unsuccessful" - this is not true, local Karaims nor church chronicles do not remember of any such incident. Even more, the fact that Karaims in Trakai region have been able to preserve their identity, language, music and traditions better than in other places, contradicts those sources.
5. There are some Karaim eminent people starting from 15th century described on wikipedia, but all of them are presented exclusively as Jews and/or Judaism scholars, ignoring the fact, that religions already have separated. I think, assumptions "Karaims are Jews, because historically they have been Karaite Judaism followers" should be avoided - this is false to any of religions.
6. I find this passage highly inaccurate and offencive, especially when put together with war crimes conducted by some Karaims elsewhere: "In Vilna and Troki Karaite Hakham Seraj Szapszal gave precise lists of the members of their community, allowing the Nazis to quickly discover Jews bearing false Karaite papers". First, that was not an act dictated by his own will. Please, read this evidence compilation [[3]], because it seems, only very few have read it. Secondly, in Trakai region have been killed more than 5000 Jews during the WWII, mostly by Lithuanians, Nazi and some Poles. This topic have been well studied, many names of the executors are known, but there is no evidence, that a single Karaim has participated in these crimes. If there were really a hate relationship between Jews and Karaims in Lithuania, there have been all possibilities for Karaims to exercise their hate on Jews, but this is not the case - so this passage is made of and even forged - please, cross check check your sources or at least try to review them critically.
7. The self identity presented as official position by Karaims is disregarded. Even if some genesis historic facts in the article are correct, they do not reflect current state of Karaim self identity. This article presents only views by some people, mostly Jews and very little related to Karaims
8. I have backpacked to Crimea in summer 2001, and seen many people there. Currently this region is very poor, so their authentic Internet presence is negligible, represented mostly by Turkish and Jewish resources (which both tend to be biased). This article is a good example of a third party voicing them with ideas they do not associate with.
9. It seems, that the most of flames comes from the hypothesis on one hand, that Karaims (a Turkish ancestry nationality, sharing a religion with root in Karaite Judaism) and Karaites (a religion followers, mostly Jewish) belong to the same ethnic and religion group, while on another hand, other hypothesis maintains that this is wrong in various degree. Currently this article is pro Karaite Judaism one.

The proposed resolution: current article is only a place for flames to burn, because it reflects only POV of some minority group. I think it is highly disputed and no serious work can be one here until it reaches NPOV state. Let's put real and cross checked facts and give the reader the opportunity to decide - until a scientific concensus will be reached, so no label "Karaite = Jew" or Karate != Jew should stay in the article. Secondly, Karaims (those who have separated from Judaism) and Karaites (those who remain Karaite Judaism folowers AND identify themselves with Karaite Judaism religion) should be separated and described respectfully both, but not in the same passages. Until the aticle reaches a NPOV state, it should be marked as disputed, because it is unacceptable in current state.

Other articles related to Karaims should be fixed in similar manner.

Article lacks of current CRIMEAN Karaim information, so until there is some, this article is very outdated. DariusMazeika

I strongly disagree for reasons I have stated repeatedly above and will not reiterate. I will not accept such an extreme and unscholarly proposal. --Briangotts 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal is unscholarly, and the links you provide do not back up your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Which school you are trying to mandate? If you have told A, go on, tell B. Telling that links I provide do not back the facts because they do not mellow your opinion, is not constructive. Please specify, why the sources I have put do not justify my claims of NPOV for this article. If you dissagree with my facts, please provide your argumentation and dissect my claims one by one if you can. Currently I find this article "unscholarly", because it present very narrow and one sided view into Karaim genesis and provides biased conclusions based on biased data. DariusMazeika 22:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You claim "On the other hand, msot studies conducted by independent researchers not related to Karaims or Jews (Lithuanian, Polish, Italian) do not confirm this. See [[4]]." What exactly in that link supports your claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts of the bibliography summary:

• Sobolov, Denis. "Vozvrashchenie v Xazariyu." Dvadtsat' dva 108 (1998): 162-192. Argues in favor of an Ashkenazic-Khazar connection.
• Achkinazi, Igor Veniaminovich. Krymchaki: istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk. Simferopol, Ukraine: Dar, 2000. Claims that Krymchaks are a mix of Khazars and Kipchaks with Judeans.
• Kefeli, Valentin Ilich. Karaites, Customs and Religion. Pushchino, Russia: Uch-Izd.L., Pushchinskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN (Pushchino Research Centre), 1995. Argues in favor of a Karaim-Khazar connection
• Zaja,czkowski, Ananiasz. "Khazarian Culture and its Inheritors." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12 (1961): 299-307. Argues in favor of a Karaim-Khazar connection. The same arguments are presented in an essay in his book Karaims in Poland: History, Language, Folklore, Science (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawn. Naukowe, 1961).
• Corrado, Gini. "I Caraimi di Polonia e Lituania." Genus 2:1-2 (Rome, 1936): 1-56. Argues that Polish-Lithuanian Karaites are anthropologically related to Chuvashes, and thus also to Khazars and Cumans.
• Zaja,czkowski, Ananiasz. "O kulturze chazarskiej i jej spadkobiercach." Mys'l Karaimska, new series, vol. 1 (Breslau, 1946): 5-34. In favor of a Karaim-Khazar connection
• Kefeli, Valentin Ilich. Karaimy. Pushchino, Russia: Pushchinskiy nauchniy tsentr RAN (Pushchino Research Centre), 1992. In favor of a Karaim-Khazar connection.

And more from here: [[5]]

• Kefeli, Valentin Ilich, and Lebedeva, Emilia Isakovna. Karaimy - Drevniy Narod Kryma. Simferopol, Ukraine: Narodniy Institut Krymskix Karaimov, 2003. Considers Karaims representatives of indigenous Kipchak and Tatar language and culture on the Crimea.
• Kobeckaitė H. Lietuvos karaimai. Vilnius, 1997.
• Kipčiakų tiurkų orientas Lietuvoje. [Kipchak-Turkic Orient in Lithuania. Papers of the international conference held in Vilnius, 1993, in Lith., Polish, Russian]. Ed.by H.Kobeckaitė ir T.Bairašauskaitė. Vilnius, 1994.
• Karaimi. Pienięznienskie spotkania z religiami [collection of articles in Polish]. Pienięzno, 1987.

Do you need more facts, that there is no official academically recognised concensus regarding hypotesis of Karaim mistaken identity current article is trying to maintain? DariusMazeika 22:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How could someone who is a mix of Khazar and Judean not be a Jew? And why would ancient papers from 40 and more years ago be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole unseemly rant by Darius and Lysy is now clearly a lack of understanding of the definition of "Jew", "Judaism" and possibly other words that others of us take for granted. What I'm seeing now, as happens often, is non-Jews trying to determine who is and who is not a Jew (this is the illogic that declares that Harrison Ford is a Jew because one of his grandparents was Jewish, but Karaites can't be because they don't have rabbis and don't follow the Talmud). What's even more ridiculous about it is that the hearsay claims of one spokesperson for a small group of Karaims is being extrapolated as applying to the whole, first, of the Karaim community, and by hyperextension, to all Karaites everywhere. Anyone who is familiar with the history of Karaism knows such efforts are a combination of crap and nonsense. Anyone who is familiar with this discussion can't help but become increasily convinced that this is a crusade by a few non-Jewish non-Karaim editors to insert an inaccurate and highly POV view into not only this article, but into every article with any relationship thereto. Tomer ^TALK 22:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, in all fairness, I was under the impression that Lysy had agreed to the current draft and we had settled the issue with him. --Briangotts 23:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I doubt it. I conditionally retract my inclusion of Lysy in my above comments, despite his comments on User_talk:DariusMazeika, pending further evidence. Tomer ^TALK 23:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I consider the above as a personal offence. Please not, that I haven't isulted anyone, not like someone of you just did. So please, start constructive critics of facts I have presented - fact by fact. Currently you reject ANYTHING what contradicts your beliefs. Please check my edit history and decide yourself if I am a Karaim or not, but do not make false allegations.

• I think, that your understanding who is a Jew (put anything here) is highly biased. If some of my ancestors, let me say, my mom is a Dutch (you can put anything here), this doesn't mean I am a Dutch, too. But I may be a Dutch, if I preserve Dutch language, traditions, and more important, self-identity. And I'm not a Dutch, I won't become one, because you name me a Dutch. Despite anything I would be Dutch ancestry, despite my identity. See the difference? Now apply this to this particular case. This article does exactly the same - ignores self identity of European Karaims and puts words don't belong to them in their lips. I have presented the official voice of local Karaims onto Talk:Trakai page (which I put lots of efforts of finding one) - but you ignored it, despite it belongs to a real Karaim language speaker and recognized representitive.
• Well written scientific studies remain relevant after many many years. If you check the list I have presented, you will see, that most of studies presented on that list are recent ones (some numbers, if you haven't noticed: 2000, 1995, 1994, 2003). I am repeating, but curently you are ignoring ANYTHING, what contradicts your views, and you simply do not read the evidence and facts I put on this page.
• Yes, I know little of Judaism, but plenty of examples are readily available. If people separate from one religious group, and their branch of religion mutate, and you do not recognize the new stuff in that branch of religion and even object it - how you can tell, that you share the same religion? Think in pairs: Catolicism-Judaism, Catholicism-Ortodox, Catholicism-Protestantism, Judaism-Islam and so on...
• You are trying to put me and User:Lysy into the same box. But you are wrong, that we don't know each another, we live in different countries, and, like many on wikipedia, we have our own disagreements we solve in disputes - see Talk:Trakai page. We respect one another, like I respect you, despite different views on some topics. Please check my edit history and you will find, that I have never contributed a single Anti-Semitic (put anything Anti* here) line and I'm working hard to cross check my data.

So please, be constructive - I hope we don't need external help by labeling this article disputed or puting it on a vote. DariusMazeika 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, based on User:TShilo12 comment on my talk page User_talk:DariusMazeika, I take no offence. This article does not make a distinction of religion and nationality. Until only one sided interpretations of facts and conclusions based of this particular narrow selection of data are present, I consider this article highly NPOV and disputed. We have different experiences when communicating with Karaims, so it's time to get both POV reflected in the article and get rid of personal conclusions, which are backed only by a selected part of studies on Karaim topic. The evidence ommited should be present in the article, too. DariusMazeika 09:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Darius: Thanks for researching the bibliography. I'm going to add it to the "Recommended Reading" section. Tomer: I wanted to stay away from this, but can I ask you again to try to refrain from your personal approach and judging views based on who your opponents are or are not. This is totally not relevant and trying to imply that my views are less valid because I'm not Karaim is similar to if I said that your views are biased if you're Jewish. This does not lead anywhere. Try to discuss the merit, and stop calling other people trolls. All: try to be a bit more openminded and assume that your POV is not the only one in the world. Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I know it is policy that everyone be allowed to contribute to any article on wikipedia, but I find it almost comical that a gentile would put so much effort into an article relating to Judaism because of the mistaken belief that Kariates are not Jews. Anyone with even the most remote idea of Jewish History knows that Kariates are Jews, and knows (or could at least deduce) why Eastern European Kariates attempt to deny their Jewish Heritage. Furthermore anyone with perhaps slightly more knowledge knows why so much documentation of "proof" exists- because that ***** Abraham Firkovitch forged it to get more privledges that the rest of us didn't get.

I believe Darius has only good intentions with his involvment but his naivete is somwhat tiring- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How is Darius naive? He is one of the only non-biased voices in this discussion, unlike Tomer and Jayjg, who just peddle the usual Zionist claptrap that I have come to associate with wikipedia. The Qaralyar are not Jewish for the simple reason they are not ethnically Hebrew to a great extant (and I ignore biased genetic studies carried out by Zionists for Zionists), they are Turkic and speak a Turkic language (culture and language are more important in defining people anyway) and not all Qaralyar are even Karaite by religion, some are Christian and some are atheist. If anything they are a Turkic people with a traditional faith (Karaism) that is derived from Judaism and may, in fact, be classed as Judaism despite not being Rabbinic. The Mummy (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is already an old discussion

Hi everyone, see for example the debate/s from early 2004 at Talk:Jew/Archive 3, see for example the information in Talk:Jew/Archive 3#There never was "one" Karaite group in history which i cited then IZAK 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC) :

See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm

THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME.

"...As their doctrines, however, were not fixed, and as almost every age the Karaites were split into diverse sects, therefore they could not resist or make headway against the Talmud, whose strength is, to those who rightly understand it, that it has never purposed to make fixed rules, to last for all ages; deliberation and reasoning concerning the Halakhas according to the circumstances, is the principle of the Talmud; and the saying of the Talmud, "even when they say to you of right that it is left, and of left that it is right, thou shalt not swerve from the commandment," shows the opinion of the Talmud, that the practice of the ceremonies and precepts is dependent on the time, place and other circumstances. With this power the Talmud combatted all its enemies, and was victorious."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"The controversies between the Jews and the Karaites are recorded in many books, Karaite and Talmudistic, from the age of R. Saadia the Gaon, and his opponent Sahal ben Matzliah to the present time. In them can also be found the history of their alternate triumphs. But this is not our task here: we will remark only that from the days of R. Saadiah the Gaon, when the Rabbis had begun to have polemics with them, can be seen the deep mark the Karaite literature left on the Rabbinical one. Philosophy was from that time used in conjunction with the Torah; many Gaonim followed R. Saadiah's method of harmonizing the Torah and the philosophy of that time, that they should seem as mutual enemies. So the Karaites charged such men with infidelity, but others were themselves compelled to imitate them, and called in the aid of philosophy, of the divinity, to interpret the texts of the Holy Scriptures."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"The effect of the Karaites on the Talmudist Rabbis is made evident also in this: that since their time the rabbis also began to write down fixed Halakhas taken from the Talmud, that the readers should not otherwise by error adopt the Karaite rules, made by the Karaite leaders, which they might mistake for the rules of the Talmud itself, since they could not know the whole Talmud by heart. They composed, therefore, the "Halakhoth G'doloth" (Great Halakhas), "Sh'iltoth'derab A'bai" (Queries of R. Ahai), for the sake of the students, who could not themselves wade through the whole Talmud. But thereby they opposed the spirit and object of the Talmud itself, that the Halakhas should be matter for discussion, and modified in accordance with the requirements of the time and place. As soon as the Gaonim had permitted to propound decisions of the Halakhas, and to fix them, those Gaonim, who succeeded them, were compelled to teach that these decisions of the former Gaonim, even though given without proofs, are holy for the people, as if giver, from Mount Sinai. This circumstance added fuel to the quarrel of the Karaites, and gave them new points of attack. The hope of some great men of the nation to reconcile the Jews with the Karaites became naught, for although the Karaites quarrelled among themselves, and split into rival sects, yet they all equally hated the Talmud, reviled it, and insulted it, styling the two colleges, at Sura and Pumbeditha, "the two harlots" spoken of in Ezekiel, who (claimed they) referred to these colleges in his prophecy." IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"'According to Makrizi there were among the Karaites ten sects, differing from each other in their opinions, practice and festivals; they had no permanence, some rose, some fell, and in the tenth century only five large sects were found, named:'

• 1. Jod'anim or Jodganim.

• 2. Makrites or Magrites.

• 3. Akhbarites.

• 4. Abn Amronites or Tiflisites.

• 5. Balbekites.

• The reader will find in the books of Jost, Grätz, Fürst, Geiger, and in Hebrew, in "Bequoreth L'toldoth Hakaraim" an account of the particulars about which the various sects of the Karaites differed, and also the names of their leaders. IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
• "We do not think it necessary to give these details in this place. We will mention for illustration the latest sect, which wished to fix the day of Atonement only on a Saturday every year, because it is said "Sabbath Sabbathan," which means a Sabbath of rest (Lev. xxiii. 32), and they translate "a Sabbath of Sabbaths," and the first day of Passover on Thursday.
• Thus each Karaite sect celebrated the Biblical festivals on different days, for each sect construed the texts in the Pentateuch by preference without being able to come to an agreement.
• Thus also in respect of the observation of Sabbath: for some Karaites, their houses were during the Sabbath their prisons, where they did sit in darkness, and which they could not leave when their neighbors happened not to be Karaites like themselves.

"In this we see the power of the Talmud, that even those who were inimical to it or hostile to a large portion of it, Halakhas never had different opinions concerning the festivals and other such things, important to one particular nation; for they could not deny its general tradition..."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Not "some" but all

Some Crimean Karaites deny Israelite origins and consider themselves to be descendants of the Khazars.

I am not involved into the life of the Qaray coomunity in Crimea, but a friend of mine living in Simferopol is. And I state that all (it is important - not some, but all) Qarays deny their Jewish origin.

E.g. a quote from the brochure named Qarays (Crimean Karaims) (Караи (Крымские Караимы)) issued by the Crimean Qaray Assotiation (Кърым Къарайлар Ассоциациясы). It is something like the Qaray catechism, answering the questins like "who we are", "what is our religion" etc. I'm sorry for my awfull translation.

Self identification of Crimean Karaims - Qarays

Crimean Karaims - autochtonic people of Crimea, ... who realize their own ethnic individuality, blood relationship with other Turkic nations, ... cultural and religious independence...

...

Origins

Crimean Karaims belong to the Turkic group of the Altaic family of nations. They are descendants of the Kereit people - members of the Khazar federation of tribes, who mixed in Crimea with Sarmato-Alans and Goths. Turkic tribes of Qırq, Uzun, Nayman, Qara, Sarı and later Kypchaks took part at the ethnogenese of Qarays. Qarays have common roots with Crimean Tatars, Karahays, Balkars, Kumyks...

Ethnogenese of Qarays was investigated by the member of th Academy of Sciences V. Alekseyev, V. Grigoryev, N. Baskakov, Prof. C. Ginni, etc.

...

Desinformations

There are many people, who write about Qarays, but are unacquainted with the Qaray people. Attempts which are made to arrogate extraneous culture and religion to the Qarays, and not to distinguish Qarays by ethnicity and Karaites by religion are insulting Crimean Karaims.

Another example is the Karaim People's Encyclopedia (Караимская Народная Энциклопедия) published in 1990s. Unfortunately now I haven't got any copy of it to quote anything. But I can say that this Encyclopedia repeats as a refrain almost on each page "We are not Jews".

I've always thougt that this is one of the main human rights: one can detirmine his own ethnicity himself. Then why should we say that some pepole are Jews, when they are saying they not?

Don Alessandro 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

PS

TShilo12, если вы понимате по-русски, я могу цитаты привести в оригинале. Потому что мой перевод уж слишком корявый.

You are right. The problem seems to be that most Jewish scholars thend to attribute Qarays to Judaism, while the Qarays distance themselves from it. The article in its current form presents Jewish point of view rather than the point of view of the Karaims themselves. --Lysy^talk 13:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And every time someone tries to clarify that Karaite and Karaism can also refer to a different ethno-religious group called Karaim the non-existent wiki "Cabal" steps in LOL. But Lysy and Don, your efforts are genuinely appreciated.Kaz 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Libel Against a Whole Religion is Unnacceptable

There needs to be some sort of sourcing in this article as it claims, among other things, that these Karaim were Nazi collaborators. If that's not sourced soo I will remove it myself in about a day or two. If it is sourced, it does provide interesting information. Basejumper 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says the opposite of what you appear to be claiming it says. It says that many Karaites went to heroic efforts to save Jews, and that some others did collaborate. There is no "liable against a whole religion" here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The section does in any event need better sourcing, but it is not libel per se. It may be original research. Also, Base please be careful of WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 02:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I am specifically going over all of the "Culture and society" articles. Unfortunately, as of June 22, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. The article was passed as a GA back in 2005, and since then, the criteria have changed significantly. The article currently lacks inline citations for several statistics and statements that should have them. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. The following are several issues that should be addressed before renominating the article at WP:GAN:

Needs inline citations:

1. "Three different dialects are in use presently: the so-called Troki dialect, used in Trakai and Vilnius (Lithuania), the so-called Lutsk or Halych dialect spoken in Lutsk (until World War II) and Halych, and the Crimean dialect."
2. "Some regard them as descendants of Karaite Jews who settled in Crimea and adopted a form of the Kypchak tongue (see Karaim language)."
3. "Others view them as descendants of Khazar (unlikely[citation needed]) or Kipchak (more likely[citation needed]) converts to Karaite Judaism."
4. "Modern Karaims seek to distance themselves from being identified as Jews, emphasizing what they view as their Turkic heritage and claiming that they are Turkic practitioners of a "Mosaic religion" separate and distinct from Judaism."
5. "The 1979 census in the USSR showed 3,300 Karaims."
6. "According to Lithanian Karaims website the Statistics Department of Lithuania" Convert these external links to inline citations for the information in the paragraph.
7. "Firkovich in particular was adamant in his attempts to connect the Karaims with the Khazars, and has been accused of forging documents and inscriptions to back up his claims."
8. "Because the Karaims were judged to be innocent of the death of Jesus, they were exempt from many of the harsh restrictions placed on other Jews."
9. "SS Obergruppenfuhrer Gottlob Berger wrote on November 24, 1944:" Source the quote by Berger.
10. "After the Soviet recapture of Crimea from Nazi forces in 1944, the Soviet authorities counted 6,357 remaining Karaims."

Other issues:

1. "Karaim is a Kypchak Turkic tongue being closely related to Crimean Tatar, Armeno-Kipchak etc." This is a list of two items and needs at least one more to use the "etc." ending. Consider also rewording "etc." to "among others" or some other word.
2. "Many Karaims were farmers. Members of the community served in the military forces of the Crimean Khanate and of Lithuania." If possible, expand on this information, providing more details than what is currently there.
3. "At the time of this writing (March 2005), genetic testing is being conducted to ascertain their ethnic origin." This needs to be updated and the results need to be included in the article.
4. "During the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Karaims suffered severely during the Chmielnicki Uprising of 1648 and the wars between Russia and Poland in the years 1654-­1667, when many towns were plundered and burnt, including Trakai, where in 1680 only 30 families were left." This sentence would read better as two sentences, consider splitting it.
5. "Lithuanian Karaims Culture Community was founded in 1988." Since this doesn't have an article, specify what this newspaper/magazine/other is for readers who are unaware.
6. "Since the incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Empire the main center of the Qarays is the city of Eupatoria." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, either expand on this or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix the other occurrences throughout the article.
7. I removed the external link (hhtp://qaraim.eu.googlepages.com) as it is blocked by Wikipedia's spam blocker. Go through the external links and determine if they are all related to the article and format the links only listed as urls to have titles as well.

Not required for GA:

1. "Some famous Karaim scholars in Lithuania included Isaac b. Abraham of Troki (1543 - 1598), Joseph ben Mordecai Malinovski, Zera ben Nathan of Trakai, Salomon ben Aharon of Trakai, Ezra ben Nissan (died in 1666) and Josiah ben Judah (died after 1658)." If possible, create articles for the red links in this statement if they meet notability requirements and there is enough availiable information to source the statements.

For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good Article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Nedim Ardoğa because his edit was totally irrelevant. Tajik (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian Empire

In this Wiki article, this section makes it appear as if Avraham Firkovich invented the claim that Karaim were not Jews specifically for ethno-economics. This is rather misleading. The following is a letter of the Turkish Karaites to the Chief Rabbi of Turkey, 1886.

We, Israelites, called Bene-Mikra, and living in the quarter of Haskeuy, owe the right to live in a ghetto of the said suburb to the mercy of the Imperial Government. Thanks to the unceasing efforts of the Medjlis (Consistory) and the progress of the century, our present position, compared with that of former times, has been considerably improved; our children go to Jewish schools, we visit the Jews and eat of their unleavened bread, and they, on their side also eat of ours. In a word, we live on good terms, as becomes the subjects of His Majesty, the Sultan, and particularly to us, who are certainly children of Israel, since we observe the Law of Moses. Now a man has appeared named Solomon Camhi who, ignoring the principles of true Judaism, is endeavoring to excite the people in every way by his writings. Lately, with an interested aim, he has excommunicated all those persons who had eaten unleavened bread which was manufactured by machinery. However, that does not concern us. This is the point which touches us more closely. For some time past, we have noticed that the old hatred of the Jews against us has been suddenly rekindled; once more we are insulted and ill-treated, and we are beaten in the streets. We have just learnt that this revival of the anger of the mob is due to the various slanders against us to be found in an absurd pamphlet of the said rabbi, entitled Melechet-Shelomo. In this work it is stated that the Karaites being purely and simply animals, not only is it forbidden to teach them the Law, but it is permissible to kill them. We therefore demand that justice should be done, and that the culprit should be punished. We address our appeal to Rab Jakir and to the Rabbinical tribunals. If we do not obtain satisfaction, we shall be obliged to make a complaint to the Government against the author of this criminal book.- Haskeuy 22nd Kislev 5627 (30th Nov. 1866). Signed: Afeda Cohen, Ishak Sadik, Eliahu Cohen, Emanuel Japhet, Ishak Kerimi, Menahem Japhe, Judah Ben-Goubi, Samuel Japhet, David Ferouz, Haim Cohen, Judah Japhet, Berachah Ben Goubi.

According to the translation given in Essai sutr l'Histoire des Israelites,by M. Franco, p. 171. THE KARAITES IN EUROPEAN TURKEY* CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEIR HISTORY BASED CHIEFLY ON UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS By ABRAHAM DANON, Paris; The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jan., 1925), pp. 357-358

What strikes me oddly concerning this letter, is the way the Karaites in 1866 Turkey referred to themselves as opposed the the Rabbinites. The karaites referred to themselves as "we Israelites, called Bene-Mikra"; "we are certainly Israelites"; and then juxtopose their being Israelites to the Rabbinites being "Jews". For instance "For some time past, we have noticed that the old hatred of the Jews against us has been suddenly rekindled".

This was written in 1866, and this was after the time that Avraham Firkovich returned from Jerusalem 1830-35. He remained in Constantinople for two years as a teacher of the Karaites in Turkey. It was in Firkovich's later years that he was concerned with proving the Karaites were not Judean. I am wondering whether Firkovich influenced the Turkish Karaites, or if they might have influenced him. It was the Karaites of Crimea who made the claim that the Karaites of Crimea were not Jews but Israelites who were exiled to those lands in the days of Sennacherib:

On 8 June, 1795, Tsarina Catherine the Great accepted a petition from a Crimean Karaite delegation requesting that they be exempted from any legislation affecting the Jews. They claimed that their ancestors had been living in the Crimea since the sixth century B.C.E., when King Sennacherib of Assyria brought them to that region after conquering the Kingdom of Israel. They also argued that their ancestors were not in Palestine when the Jews crucified Jesus. This theological argument was accepted, and the Karaites were permitted to purchase land and were exempt from paying the double tax imposed upon the Russian Jewish community. Simon M . Dubnow,History of the Jews in Russia and Poland(PhiladelphiaP, a., 1916),I , 318; The Fate of the Crimean Jewish Communities: Ashkenazim, Krimchaks and Karaites, Warren Green, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 170-171, INdiana University Press

This event would have happened when Firkovich was about 10. This means he was not the originator of the concept that the Karaites were Israelites and not Jews. As Warren Green explains there were two groups of "Karaites"; the Krimchak's who were Rabbinic Jews, and the Karaites who were not.

" Both of these groups had resided in the Crimea for many centuries and had culturally assimilated into the Muslim Tatar population. Both groups had adopted the Tatar language for everyday use. The Karaites spoke Karaim and the Krimchaks spoke Jagatai which were both traditionally written with Hebrew characters. Through intermarriage with the native populations, these two "mosaic" groups developed distinct Turkic-Mongolian physical features. The two groups, however, differed in one area - religion. The Krimchaks were adherents to the Rabbinic tradition of Judaism and not as some scholars mistakenly contend, either "Islamized Jews" or a "tribe long separated from the mainbody of Jewry."' The Karaites, on the other hand, were Old Testament Fundamentalists who had thrown off the yoke of Rabbinic authority in the eighth century." Fate of the Crimean Jewish COmmunities: Ashkenazic, Krimchaks, and Karaites, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 171-172 Indiana University Press

I find myself wondering if there were not two distinct groups of Karaites in the Crimea. Those who considered themselves Jews, and those who considered themselves Israelites, much like the Samaritans. It seems a bit extreme to think there were some Karaites who were motivated solely by ethno-economic freedom as is the common claim.

According to the Wiki article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krimchak), prior to the 19th century (1800's) the Krimchak's called themselves Bene Yisrael. I believe this to be the result of the similarities of the Karaim and Krimchak, who had the same culture basically. In reality, it was the Krimchak who claimed to be Jews, while it was the position of the Karaims to have been Bene Yisrael according to every historical document I can find.

Looking at the Wiki article on the Karaim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Karaites), they propose that Hakham Avraham Firkovich was the motivating force behind the Karaim separation from Judaism; however, according to the historical record, this separation accured long before Firkovich, and when he was 10 it was recognized by the Tsarist government of Russia. This recognition saved the Karaim during the Holocuast, as they were considered to be distinct from the Jews.

"On 5 December 1941, Ohlendorf decided to temporarily exempt the Karaites and the Krimchaks from registering as Jews until a further investigation could be undertaken. He then sent a letter to Berlin requesting information concerning the policy that should be adopted in dealing with these two groups. German documentation reveals that as early as 22 November 1941, inquiries were made concerning the safety of the Crimean Karaite community. In a letter addressed to Alfred Rosenberg, head of the Ostministerium fur die Besetzen Ostgebiete (the Ministry of the Eastern Occupied Territories), a request was made by Sheraya Szapszal, the Hakham (spiritual leader) of the Polish Karaite community that the Reichsstelle fur Sippenforschung exemption be recognized by the German authorities in Southern Russia." (Fate of the Crimean Jewish Community: Ashkenazic, Krimchak, ad Karaim, Warren Green, p.172)

"In another document mention of the Krimchak and Karaite settlements in the Crimea can be found. This report, dated 15 December 1941, was entitled Vorldufige Angaben uber die Krim ("Preliminary Statements Concerning the Crimea") and was prepared by researchers from the Reichskommissariat fur der Festigung deutscher Volkstum (Reichscommission for the Strengthening of the German People). The report explained that the Krimchaks were Jews who spoke the Tatar language and had intermarried with the native populations. This assimilation was apparent from the relatively high percentage of Asiatic features found among the Krimchaks. The authors of the report considered the Karaites to be distinctly different from the Jewish Krimchaks. Their uniqueness as a non-Jewish group was recognized by the tsars who granted them many rights and privileges."(Fate of the Crimean Jewish Community: Ashkenazic, Krimchak, ad Karaim, Warren Green, p.172)

At any rate, the current article is misleading, as Firkovich set out to prove a claim already to have been made and upheld by the Tsarist regime. He proved this via Ibne Zikaron, which documented the gravestones, indicating the Karaim called themselves Bene Israel from ancient times. The authenticity of his book may be disputed, however, the point is, he did not make the claim, nor was he the main force behind it.

Just food for thought Yaaqov ben Yisrael (talk), 23:15, 25 December 2010‎

File:Flicker- Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flicker- Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Flicker- Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pluralization ?

Throughout the article, "Karaims" is used as the plural form; but isn't "Karaim" plural already?--Jrm2007 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question and I am extremely glad you asked! Karaim the Kypchaq word is not to be confused with the completely unrelated Hebrew plural word Qaraim which is also erroneously spelled Karaim. The Kypchak word Karaim is both a singular noun and adjectival. The Hebrew word Qaraim is a plural noun but may also be adjectival as in the phrase Ha-Yehudim Ha-Qaraim meaning Karaite Jews. This Hebrew word has nothing to do with the Kypchak word Karaim which is singular and appears as Karaimlar in plural form if using a Kypchak dialect or Karaims if using English. :)

The Kypchak singular noun and adjectival Karaim refers to any disciple of the Karays. The Karays are the clergy who serve the Karaims they live among. The Karay dynasty ruled in Crimea from the time of the Golden horde. Unlike the Karaim laity (who wore white) the Karay clergy wore black which in the Kypchak languages is the meaning of Kara (black) although Judeo-centric scholars have sometimes argued that it comes from the same etymological origin as the Biblical Hebrew word מקרא (convocation). Despite the coincidence of Karays wearing black, the Karay name of the clerical dynasty actually in fact comes from Aramaic being identical with the Koranic Arabic term قارئ‎ (reader). The plural form of the Kypchak word Karay is Karaylar which in English would be Karays, and in Arabic would be قراء and in Hebrew would be קוראים but not קראים.

If we try to devise an accurate term to describe the Karaim in Hebrew it might be "חברה של הקוראים" while Arabic would be "آلحواريون من القراء" which is why the most ancient attested name for the Karaims was Khavari.

I hope this will answer all the questions you might have. Kaz 10:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Karaims and the "ОН-ОКЪ" (Ten Tribes)

It is common knowledge that Karaims (but not Karaite Jews) boast descent from Khazars, but what they do not realize is that we believe the Он-окъ (On-oq) whence came (mixing with Carian mercenaries from Caphtor and Kolhkis) our Khazar ancestors were in fact the remnant of the lost Ten-Tribes of Israel who formed our priesthood. It is precisely for this reason that Karaite Jewish scholars like Jacob Ben Reuben of Byzanteum and Yefet ben Ali or Jeshua ben Judah call us bastards in their writings.

The following editor ^{(User:Yaaqov B. Yisrael above)} points out very eloquently that Karaims explained this this long standing tradition to the Russian authorities as soon as we started to come under their dominion, almost a century before Firkovich published the results of his attempt to test the theory. Kaz 09:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with citations of information

Some of the information cited in the article is not credibly cited.

"However, Miller stated that the phenomenon of claiming a distinct identity apart from the Jewish people appears to be no older than the 19th century, when it appeared under the influence of such leaders as [[Avraham Firkovich]] and [[Sima Babovich]] as a means of escaping [[anti-Semitism]]<ref name=Miller_p36>Miller, ''Karaite Separatism in 19th Century Russia'' p36.</ref>."

Strangely enough I asked Kaz to provide citations on 3 September, and gave an example of the format.[6] So he added the example citation to the article as shown.[7] This is not believable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Toddy1's book and page reference for the Miller comment has been missing long before me until he provided it. I thought he was being accurate. I am extremely happy to remove the entire sentence which I believe to be bogus anyway. I want to point out I left it in to appease Toddy1 during my revision although I disagree with its credibility.

I am also happy to have the section about Identity removed if Toddy1 is unable to provide references for it.Kaz 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The book reference for Miller was deleted by Kaz at 09:31, 3 September 2012.[8] Admittedly this did not give a page number. The book refered to was mentioned in the bibliography at the bottom, so it was clear which book was being referred to.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not very skillful at reporting accurately what is actually going on in your links and references Toddy1. Kaz 21:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with citations

Arabic language

Citation 5 is provided to back up the claim that the Crimean Karaite language is sometimes written in Arabic script. This citation is: "Trakų Salos Pilis - Muziejus, Book in Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania". But the URL is from flickr.com, it does not show the uploader details. This one does:[http://www.flickr.com/photos/moacirdsp/3942867638/in/photostream/ this reveals that the uploader self-identified as Moacir de Sa Pereira (User:moacirdsp). This is therefore a self-published source.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is in the Museum for all to see. Your criticism is unclear, but your POV pushing is very clear. Kaz 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Identity

The identity section contains the following statement:

Most Jews along with the Israeli Rabbinate and especially Karaite Jews do not regard Karaims (as opposed to Karaite Jews) as Jewish.

Green, W.P. "Nazi Racial Policy Towards the Karaites”, Soviet Jewish Affairs 8,2 (1978) pp. 36–44

Gurwitz, Percy Die Schuld am Holocaust, pub Stadt Erlangen, 2010 pp. 7-8

Brook, K. A. The Jews of Khazaria. 2nd ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2006. pp. 139-140

I have been unable to find statements in the two citations after "most Jews" that would back up the statement "Most jews... do not regard Karaims (as opposed to Karaite Jews) as Jewish." Green's article does say that during the German occupation of Poland Jewish scholars in the Vilna, Warsaw and Lvov ghettos conducted "wartime research" "to help solve the riddle of the Karaites' racial origin", and suggested that "the Karaites were of Turkic-Tatar descent and therefore, were not racially related to the Jews", and also that the Karaites "had little in common with the Jews." That is very different from the statement in the article.

You must remember the circumstances. The Jewish scholars were at least somewhat aware of the fate the Germans intended for the Jews; they knew that if the Karaites were not classified as Jews, then the Karaites could escape the fate of the Jews. In addition, at least some Rabbinic Jews were on false papers pretending to be Karaites (though whether the scholars guessed this is not known). Since the Karaites spoke a Tatar language and the Rabbinic Jews spoke Yiddish, it was easy to claim that the Karaites were a different ethnicity (though this is not the same as believing that the Karaites were non-Jews).--Toddy1 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no mistake in the cited sources, but there is a problem with your POV pushing. You have made clear again and again that you think Karaims are legitimate Jews, and I am sure there are many Messianic Jews who would agree with you but the problem is the Israeli Rabbinate does not agree with you. Kaz 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pages 139-140 of Brook's The Jews of Khazaria talk about relations between the Khazars and the Alans, the Pechnegs, the Oghuz, and the Hungarians in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. They in no way support the claims in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case you have the wrong edition. Kaz 08:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article claims to be citing the second (2006) edition. What edition do you think the page numbers refer to?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The current corrected citations are now accurate at least. Kaz 00:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Other citations to Brook's The Jews of Khazaria

The citation to p110-11 of Brook's The Jews of Khazaria, does support the information cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems despite his significant contributions on this page, Briangotts is responsible for some of the original confusions here [9] and cites no page numbers until much later [10]. In the 1999 edition Kevin Alan Brook makes this conclusion himself on page 143, but it seems Briangotts holds Brook's view in very high regard [11]. Since you have checked out his ref as bogus I have put in the correct edition and page number. Kaz 09:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

But surely the 1999 edition you cited is the first edition, not the second edition?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The current corrected citations are now accurate at least. If you have more to offer on the subject from the 2006 book that you have then please don't hold it back. Kaz 00:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Call for more constructive edits

Why do I feel like I am the only principle editor doing all the hard yards here these days while at least one or two other editors who have not exerted themselves to the point where they could be called the "principal editor" of any significant article insist that their own ill-considered contributions take precedence? Can we have some real constructive input on Karaimi/Karaims/Karaimai from more editors from now on please? I think the article is finally well structured with enough appropriately named sections in the article to include any relevant references/sources for articles like [12]. Work which needs to be done includes more background information on the roles of Ułłu and Szamasz (e.g. here [13] for example). I really hope more editors than those currently involved will join in constructively. Kaz 11:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The order of this talk page

Extended content

I have restored the order of this talk page to the order at the start of the day. The wholesale unilateral changes introduced by an editor today seemed deceptive to me. I have just noticed that a new section was added on 21 August, entitled "Complete re-write needed as current version is utter codswallop and balderdash". Unfortunately this section was added at the top of the page. This is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which state that we should "start new topics at the bottom of the page". It is confusing to have new topics at the top of the page, which was why I overlooked it. I would like to move this topic so that it appears in the order that it would have appeared in, if it had been put at the bottom when it was created. Does anyone mind if this topic is moved to between "File:Flicker... Nominated for Deletion" and "Proposed renaming of article"?--Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Toddy1 is too self righteous when he himself was the first person to start re-ordering the karaims and Crimean karaites talk pages to promote his own baseless POV. Seems only one person is allowed to make "wholesale unilateral changes" i.e. Toddy1. If anyone else is Bold then Toddy1 does not like it. Just more tactics to confuse the issue and delay progress as long as possible. Kaz 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for moving the section "Complete re-write needed as current version is utter codswallop and balderdash" to a place consistent with policy.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I had already placed it to the correct location until you moved it. You should not feign ignorance/innocence. Kaz 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC) More Ad-Hominem attacks And no more vandalism (WP:VANDAL), kindly apologize and restore my comments which you deleted with reference to the parts of discussion they related to. Kaz 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Proposal for cleaning up the talk page The parts of this talk page before 11.4 Redirect Page seem quite good. I do not think we would lose much if all the sections after that had an extended content wrapper put round it. We can carry on scratching each other's eyes out, but it is not going to do any of us any good. By leaving all this "dirty washing" in the open, we lay ourselves open to attack by people claiming that we "don't seem to be able to have a civilized discussion amongst" ourselves. Kaz, Nozdref would you both be willing to agree to this? Nothing gets deleted - but it gets put in an envelope (see below).--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Extended content I don't want the whole "Karaite Jews ain't Karaims ande vice versa" thing to be put in an envelope. Kaz 22:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC) OK. If you will not agree to that, could we at least change all these heading 2s into heading 3s? They are all part of the move discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I'm also not happy with the mess. I tried to fix it but ... you know the rest. So now let's finish the discussion first then decide what to do with it. Kaz 07:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz - this needs to have someone adjudicate on your move request. Cleaning up the mess a bit, will help make that happen. I would like to move the following comments so that they come after the Google results discussion (with no heading separating them. Something that adds to the confusion is that Karaites (Jewish) refer to themselves as "Karaim" (also written Kara'im, Qaraim, and Qara'im). This is superficially the same word being used above to distinguish the Crimean people from the Jewish people. In English, they (the Jewish group) are commonly (by outsiders) called "Karaites" (an anglicization of קראים Qaraˀîm, the singular forms are Karaˀi or Qaraˀi) but amongst themselves, and in other languages, "Karaim" (or the Q form) is frequent. In all cases, for the Jewish group, these terms usually stand alone (that is, without the qualifiers such as "Judaism" or "Jew"). That said, the term "Karaylar", for the Crimean people, can not be confused for the Jewish group. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I agree absolutely with your suggestion of Karaylar (or better still Karaimlar) Al-Shimoni, unfortunately,although these terms are indeed how members of this ethnic group refer to themselves, these names are not in keeping with the WP:CRITERIA or WP:UCN guidelines as already pointed out by Toddy1 and AjaxSmack. It is worthwhile noting the Hebrew word is plural while the Karaim language word is singular as described here Talk:Crimean_Karaites#Pluralization_.3F. I propose that some disambiguation pages are called for. Kaz 08:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC) If you agree to this, then I would put a {{collapse top}} immediately after this, and a {{collapse bottom}} down to here, so that the comment after the envelope would be your comment "I want to get back to clarifying the name of this article...." Please may I have your agreement to do this. If you do not like the results, you can revert it, and discuss it more here. But if we want this to be adjudicated, we need to do something.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC) First of all let's get my comments restored to the locations they were intended to be [14] and you will see that the numbering on all the headings on this page are sub-categories of the very first discussion about whether this location (Crimean Karaites) is appropriate for an article about all Karaims. Which is what the topic of the first discussion on this page is by BIR, so I hope you will agree that the heading explaining that discussion, i.e. "Karaims = Karaites?" and all subsequent heading 2s and 3s and even 4s should be placed to make it clear that this has been rambling on for 7 years since the very first (ill-thought out) move was made should not have been removed. Now after restoring my comments to the correct locations and then the headings 2s and 3s and even 4s under the title "Karaims = Karaites?" which should have been placed at the top of the page to show that this discussion is a continuation of that on the initial move, then we can talk about where to collapse and not collapse. Personally I don't see any need to collapse anything just get the page into a clear and logical appropriately headed order. But after that is done, then we can talk about collapsing if it looks necessary. Kaz 17:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC) But the rest of us objected to some parts of your refactoring, which was why it was reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC) If you mean 2 out of 20 of you then say 2 out of 20. Kaz 20:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC) With the permission of Al-Shimoni we could move the "Dispute history" section directly under the google book counts and remove the title so that it all fits in one discussion. Kaz 00:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) You have moved Nozdref's comment dated 19:00, 31 August 2012 so it now sits under "redirect page", when it was originally written in response to the bit you titled "Dspute History". Why? Please do not move any more sections/paragraphs, etc. Other editor's comments are not a pack of cards for you to shuffle.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC) No I did not, look at the edit again here [15] I simply undid your move of my comments. Something you seem to like doing to me very much. And even if I had, my recent Admin noticeboard appeal when you did this to me remember (surely your memory is not hat short???) revealed that there is no rule about moving or even removing another person's comments on talk page. Apology now please? No? Hmmm I didn't think so. P.S. Do I still have to be the one to restoring to their intended locations my comments which you deleted then moved to the wrong places? Kaz 07:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

:Lithuanian Wikipedia as a base ?

I would like to know what is a reason that a base of this article is a Lithuanian page, This page is written in the language unspoken by most of Crimean Karaites and includes the "knowledge" of about ten peoples,and does not include ANY source! While there is comprehensive page in Russian spoken by the most of Crimean Karaites that includes several hundreds correction,and tens of sources.

I think it is a reason while this English page so far from neutrality and reflects the opinion only of the most extreme Karaylar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The most recent Chief Gahan of the East European Karaims was one of the Lithuanian Karaims. It seems only the Lithuanian page has not been influenced by anti-Karaims POV. I am impressed to see some of your contributions to the article sir. However, one edit you contributed to this page concerns a known convert to Rabbinical Judaism and so I removed it as it does not really belong here. I notice that your Username makes reference to Yurii Polkanov, head of the World Association of Karaims. He is a great man. :) Kaz 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Lithuanian" Karaims actually are living on teritory with Lithuanian Minority that till 1939 was under Polish Authority,so their mother tongue is till USSR collapse time was not Lithuanian ,Russian is the language the elder Karaims are speaking in their homes,(not Lithuanian). In opposite to Lithuanian source(WITHOUT ANY SOURCE) ,Russian page represents several opinions including the opinion of Chazar theory.In opposition to this YOUR page(because you remove all other opinions even with references ) ,every statement at Russian page have reference.Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you quote me a specific example please? You seem to be mistaken. Are you building a straw-man? Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For example you have removed the link to wikipedia article to Dulo Tamga actually referring to Bulgar Dulo dinasty and not to Kerait .By the way the Giray tamga presented at this page actually is the symbol of Crimean Tatars so it cannot be Karailar symbol. Refer to Russian article to see invented by Seraya Shapshal,Karaylar symbol Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

I think it would be best to bring such comments from the Russian article here. I agree with you which is why I changed the Lithuanian source article to the Russian source article. You made a very good point. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of your comments are a bit too passionate for an encyclopedic article. I would like to include them in a relevant section but wonder if it would be ok to re-phrase them? Also,

Нам — современным караимам-просветителям, воскрешающим духовное наследие «Русских Караимов Ветхозаветного Вероисповедания» (то есть караимов всей Восточной Европы, в прошлом бывшей под властью Российской империи) близки идеи караимских просветителей 19-начала XX века — династии Луцких,Султанского, династии Бабовичей,Фирковича, Шишмана об этногенезе караимов Европы в качестве библейско-тюркско-персидской общины — то есть остатка библейского Израиля по мужской линии и прозелитами — перешедшими в караизм из других народов, смешанных с женщинами из среды тюрков-кыпчаков и хазар и персов-татов. В то же время нам абсолютно чужды безграмотные, антинаучные и попросту невежественные идеи-фантазии нынешних пантюркистов-популистов, не знающих по-настоящему, в отличие от их духовного вождя Шапшала, ни одного караимского языка (не только иврита и арабского, на которых созданы тысячи караимских текстов, но даже и тюркского!), и пишущих свои любительские антинаучные статейки в основном по-русски или на другом славянских языках, утверждающих, что современные караимы — это исключительно потомки хазаров-язычников."Хазарский след", сколь заманчивым он бы ни был в конце XIX начале XX века — не объясняет всего сложного комплекса этногенеза караимов, и в особенности караимов Восточной Европы. Не выдерживает эта теория и проверки современной лингвистикой и генетикой. Все тюркские языки и диалекты, которыми пользовались караимы на протяжении своей истории принадлежат к кыпчакской и огузской подгруппам тюркской группы языков, а не к хазарской, а с точки зрения ДНК — караимы Восточной Европы имеют не только тюркские, но и ближневосточные гены.

it seems this is taking the stance of a renowned Russian Jewish author Hacham Gershom Tzipris (Гершом Киприсчи), if you have a peer reviewed publication from this author which can be used as a source it would be great to insert into the article. Website comments from self-published websites like http://bakhtawiacademy.livejournal.com and www.orahsaddiqim.org are not really useful. Kaz 08:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you claiming that Gershon Kirspichi is a Jew. Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Because he told me his family were Breslov. But you don't have to accept my word for it, there is plenty on the internet about his Jewish ancestry. [16] Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Jewish blood or even Jewish family name still does not make somebody non-Karaim. Yuri Polkanov's father was ethnic Russian, orthodox priest's son.Yuri Polkanov has Russian name and surname,and his articles based on his father publication dated manly by Holocaust time,but he is still defined as ethnic Karaylar,So the reference to Gershon Kirspichi , may be presented in the version of this page like in the Russian article with the same right as reference to Polkanov Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Karaims have always been mixed, not just Yuri Polkanov. However, Gershom does not have any Karaimi or Karaylar in his ancestry. He simply changed his Yiddish name to a Karaylar name. Of course anyone who wants can to convert to our religion to marry one of us, we have always been Universalist in our acceptance of others. I even welcome Gershom if he wants to adopt our identity in its entirety and fully join the Karaimi-Karaylar, but what I object to is a person attempting to infiltrate our community, establish himself as a leader without the approval of our own traditional chiefs, and attempting to silence our own native reverence for Jesus, Muhammad, Tengri, Buddha, etc., and pretend our own native practices such as use of oak groves and the historical distinction between circumcised clergy and uncircumcised laity are recent innovations rather than remnants of ancient practice. It seems not very secular but very religious fundamentalist in attitude. Karaimi-Karaylar were always very peaceful, and universalist being friendly and welcoming to others in our religious attitudes. Don't you agree? Our community is dying because we are allowing outsiders to infiltrate and divide us so that they can tear us to pieces and fight over our heritage. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read his works,Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many but not all. I used to enjoy many of the things he says. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

He explains in details his Karaim genealogy,Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You should check his background for yourself rather than simply follow him blindly. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is only his word against your word about Breslav origin that also supposed not to be followed blindly 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said. :) Kaz

he definitely distinguishs between Karaimizm and Judaism .He claims that Karaim have different origin from Jews.Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Good :) this is as it should be. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree with him,but the encyclopedic article must represent also other opinions.Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I propose we put in a section entitled "Critics' Views" to cover all external opinions. However, I would like to point out that no one would insert the critics opinions in an article about Romanian ethnogenesis despite all the evidence contrary to native Romanian opinion. It seems unnecessarily tolerant to allow critics views on our ethnogenesis in our own article. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In opposite to you he references to Karaim authors like Sultanskij Firkovich and Shishman ,Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I often make reference to Firkovich, Babovich, and Polkanov, three great Karaim-Karaylar.Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You reference to Firkovich is strange enough, claiming him supporting Khazar theory. In fact he clamed that Karaim were in Crimea before Christianity and Khazars. He claimed an Israel origin of Karaites that differs from Judean origin of Rabbanists. Although the Polkanov use the "references" to Firkovich at the same way. I suppose that you took the "references" to Firkovich from his publications. Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes he did indeed you are correct, but he also told us that the Khazars themselves descended from these tribes, especially THE Levites of Simeon. But not Just Firkovich told us this, others too. I am sure I can find an independent source concerning the Khazar origins from the Levites of Simeon. Polkanov does make slight references to Firkovich in a similar way, but as you certainly know well, Polkanov did not understand everything about it completely in his earlier works. Yet he knew more than most Karaims who were under the Soviets at that time don't you agree? We should be understanding of the difficult circumstances. Polkanov, Teriyaki, Lavrinovich, Shapshal etc. are all of the same opinion and therefore at least more reliable than Gershom's Jewish interpretation of the facts. Please don't misunderstand me, Gershom is extremely well educated and I enjoy many of the things he has said. But at the same time, he is nevertheless an outside from a family of outsiders who absolutely has not inherited an understanding of our traditional practices (e.g. like all Jewish fundamentalists he does not understand our reverence of Jesus or Muhammad nor understand our Oak grove practices etc., etc., etc.) but instead tries to interpret everything through a Jewish point of view which is genuinely alien to our own unique heritage. I hope you can catch my gist here. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why every man having another opinion from you defined by you as Jew ,every source about Karaism even encyclopedia defined by you Jewish ? Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing me with someone else. Kaz 00:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you add to the article explanation what is the reason for Jews to distort Karaim History.It is clear enough why Karaylar want to differ from Jews even without multiple known references, Your opinion have no mostly any reference.Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in what you are trying to say here, but I can't exactly catch your intention. If you can expand on your meaning I would like to read more details. I liked your contributions, although your English is poor, I would like to encourage you to make more contributions to the article and I will do my best to correct your English. If it is easier please do write here in your first language, I am sure I will understand it better. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very appreciate your very helpfull to me efforts ,I hope that syntax and phraseology corrections wil not affect the intention like it was be done with Karaim leaders objection to Khazar Theory,that was replaced to d the idea that Khazar theory was suggested by Grigoriev.--Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I will look at what you have written again. :) Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you to refer your opinion by cites from Nazis Newspapers from Holocaust period.They are also cited in Russian article. But is only one opinion you cannot remove other referenced opinions with replacing them by you unreferences opinions like you try to do with Karayim Husars, Guardians ,farmers e.t.c,removing reference to historical documents showing that it is no more than modern legend. It is looks like vandalism Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are certainly confusing me with someone else, please do insert your references into the article to back up the interesting things that you are saying. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Неполканов, if you can read Czech or Slovak, I would like to recommend you to http://www.karaimskykatechizmus.estranky.cz/ as a great source for Karaite literature. Kaz 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again why you refer to language unspoken by most of Karaims.There is no Czhek or Slovak Gahan Неполканов (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Valko is a Karaite Jewish Hazzan not a Karaim-Karaylar Gahan. Also as you know Gershom Tzipris is not a Gahan either. He was trained as a Karaite Jewish Hakham though. Kaz 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Неполканов, I would like you to comment more on your reference to this poem please. Kaz 10:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Неполканов, you seem to share my view that the article in its current state is not based on what sources really say, but is instead based on the opinion of an editor. I have tried checking some of the recently added citations and the ones I checked did not support the information cited. Citations in the version of 9 August 2012 do not seem to have this problem. The version of 9 August is not perfect, but much of the uncited information in it can easily be supported by citing Brook or Green's books. Brook and Green's books talk about some of the myths about Eastern European Karaites and the history of these myths. Do you think it would be better to revert the article to the version of 9 August 2012? At least that way, we could have a trustworthy basis for improving the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Toddy1, why are you distorting the truth again? You have not checked the sources in the article. You have not found that they do not support, and even if anti-Polkanov POV agrees with you it is not consensus with the majority of contributors and neither of you could take such unilateral action without starting a serious edit war, which is no substitution for civilised discussion. I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you do what normal wiki editors do when there is controversy and post below, a few sentences which you would like to see in the article with your references, and we can discuss them like civilised human beings. When we have a consensus, I myself will be happy to insert your ideas into the article. Wouldn't that make you happy? Let's just try to make a start at that shall we? Let's start with one sentence and see how well we can get along with it? Kaz 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I want it to be recorded here that I fully support Toddy1's suggestion to revert this article back to its beginning version, before the religious/sectarian POV of a self-avowed priest of a small ethnic-religious sect started a massive campaign of rewriting "Karaite" history. As I have said before in other articles, changes of the scope and depth this editor is making, without any discussion or consensus, and without really pointing to any reliable sources, have to be discussed term by term and sentence by sentence, based on reliable sources in all languages available. I want it also to be recorded here that I can also read some Russian, at least for the purposes of discussions here, and that Russian and Lithuanian sources are indeed key for this article. warshy^talk 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Let it be noted also, if I wasn't sufficiently clear above, that the self-avowed priest is editing articles in Wikipedia about HIS OWN small ethnic-religious sect. How NPOV can his editing be in such a case? It is indeed a massive campaign of ethnic and religious propaganda that is targeting the English WP, for some reason, as its medium. Why doesn't he wage that propaganda campaign in the Russian and Lithuanian WPs first, where all the sources are? warshy^talk 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Warshy you are hysterically funny :D Any of the Karaims who begin to observe all the laws of Torah and get circumcised become clergy Karaylar lol Everyone knows that. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that format of Russian page presenting all the opinions about Karaim origin will help to find the article the acceptable for all of us.So let start from it.--Неполканов (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I agree. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to incorporate information and structure from the very good article on Russian Wikipedia, that would be very helpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, everything is being twisted around to not fit the facts. This edit is a good example of the twisting process.[17] This is not OK.

We are also edits like this.[18] You will of course note that the URL leads merely to an 18 page books title (Aj jaryhynda) and author (Aleksander Mardkowicz Kokizow). What is claimed by the edit directly contradicts Philip Miller's Karaite Separatism in the Nineteenth Century, so if this citation is genuine, it is surprising that the work does not appear in the Miller's bibliography.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Facts are facts. Let's not forget who Miller worked for http://huc.edu/ He is not a peer reviewed author in the field and can hardly be considered NPOV in this case. Kaz 19:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So there are book reviews by major newspapers condemning Miller's book for the bias you claim it has? If so, please cite them.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING

I don't know why this is still apparently unclear to some, but the moving around of comments and all the other silly refactoring/re-editing/etc of other user's comments on this talk page needs to stop right now and there will be harsh blocks forthcoming if it does not. I hope I have made that clear enough here for everyone to underatand.

I can't imagine what anyone hopes to gain from this foolishness, and what's more I don't care. It is as disruptive as it is pointless. Stop it. Now. Don't comment here about it, don't start fighting about who started it, don't keep sniping at one another in edit sumarries, and don't undo anything that's already been done. Just cut this foolish behavior out, now, permanently. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I am not allowed to make format improvements, please could you insert spaces before comments in sensible places in the section :Lithuanian Wikipedia as a base ?. The reason for asking is that this is the normal format, and it makes it easier to read.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gershom Tzipris

I would like to invite the "anti-Polkanov POV" supporters of Gershom (ben Yonah) Tzipris (namely Toddy1 [19] and Неполканов [20]) to submit here for discussion and inclusion into the article one of his peer-reviewed teachings from an independently published source relevant to the ethnic group of Karaims on whom this article is written. I am a fan of some of his opinions, and would also like to see someting of his in the article, but so far have found nothing that meets Wikipedia source guidelines. If you know better, please post below. Kaz 10:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that my comment above was a bit like talking to a brick wall LOL. Kaz 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Karaite Jewish POV pushing

Toddy1, your so called "revert" or in fact vandalism of logical order, and attempt to delete references and insert un-sourced POV into the article to mislead the average Jewis reader is not a good idea. Rabbinical Jews do permit marriage with Karaite Jews, but not with Crimean (or any other) Karaims, you should not attempt to force such an misleading agenda into an encyclopaedic article. You should probably move on from this article and work on the Karaite Judaism page where your opinions may be more welcome. Kindly do not interrupt again the work Неполканов's and I are currently carrying out on the article until we have finished. After that you are welcome to make comments here as usual of course. Kaz 15:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I don't think you understand the concept of peer reviewed work. Kaz 22:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

REMOVED - the Talk Pages are for discussing Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article, not for posting music videos as some sort of humor. Please DO NOT do that again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete re-write needed

Since the religion of "Crimean" Karaimlar/Karaylar (the correct terms) is Karaite Karaism not antithetical Karaite Judaism, this article needs to be completely re-written. I have the knowledge to do this but do not yet (despite years of wiki editing) know how to re-write an article when there are a group of editors who are hell-bent on perverting a theme. I think I will need the assistance of some objective moderators for this task. Let me start by highlighting to our Jewish (not Karaite Jewish) friends, why "Crimean" Karaimlar/Karaylar can not be considered Jews.

1. First of all, ONLY our clergymen are circumcised and do their utmost to observe all the Toral Laws of Moses. There are only a handful of living clergymen around the world, so the majority of "Crimean" Karaimlar/Karaylar are laity (i.e. not Hachan, not Hazan, not Ulu-Hazan and not even Shamash). And within this point you can see that we only have the word Hazan in common with Karaite Jews, but the role of the Hazan in Karaite Karaism is as the one who calls the believers to prayer and has nothing to do with the role of the Hazan in Karaite Judaism. Our religion descends from the Sebomenoi of the Bosporan Kingdom, as taught by the Shammuti (indeed the Shammuti Halakhah is still the oral tradition of our clergymen and we call it the Bashyazi sevel ha yerushah which is totally different from Karaite Judaism but a little bit similar to Hillelite Torah shebeal peh) the same religion that Abu Hanifa converted Anan Ben David to. Clearly anyone can see that this is a massive difference with ancient Karaite Karaism and Karaite Judaism.
2. Secondly "Crimean" is a misnomer, not all the Karaimlar/Karaylar in the world call themselves Crimean, the Polish and Galician Karaimi believe we have been in these locales since the time of the Hungarian conquest, so it is really stretching it for us to call ourselves "Crimean" now.
3. Thirdly, "Crimean" Karaimlar/Karaylar practice substitution with regards to the Torah Laws of Moses where something is done in-place of something required in the Torah, as permitted by Karaite Karaism. But Karaite Judaism does not even have have such a concept.
4. Fourthly, we believe Christ and Muhammad (salallahu aleihi wasalam) are prophets, while Karaite Judaism on the other hand does not require saying "salallahu aleyhi wasalam" after his name.
5. Fifthly, Firkovich's collections have nothing to do with Jews. His only interest was in our pre-Khazar origins. Just because some of the documents which belong to our community are considered valuable "Jewish" documents (e.g. the Leningrad codex) it does not mean that Karaite Jews can come along and change the history in order to steal them from us just like you did our Synagogue in East Jerusalem in 1967 after bombing the hell out of it.
6. Sixthly, we are not allowed to make Aliyah under the law of return. Those of our number in Israel today are the relatives of those of us who were there before 1967. Doesn't that give you a big enough clue? Kaz 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Finally, our word for God is like all Tatars Tengri or Allah but not Adonai.

In brief, the religion of "Crimean" Karaimi/Karaylar is a unique (in the world) Torah observant form of uniquely Tatar Islam, but we have always respected what we consider in our opinion to be real (i.e. orthodox) Jews (not Karaite Jews whose teachers, like Jeshuan ben Yehudah and Jacob ben Reuben of Byzanteum, have called us Bastards for centuries) so much so that many of our members with a clerical vocation have, just like Subbotniks, Molokans, and Gerei etc., been converting to orthodox Judaism for centuries, starting with Bulan (Khazar). What I can say is that the authors of this article certainly have a connection to Mordechai Alfandari and therefore Israeli-state funded "Universal Karaite Judaism" which is mis-allocating Israeli government money to spend on baring false witness about us and and re-write our history (something Karaite Jews, who are really just Sadducees, do very well indeed) but to what end, only God knows best. Many thanks for your patience in reading. Kaz 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Russian language Wikipedia article on this subject is a much better quality article than the English language version. Perhaps that should be a starting point for a rewrite of this article.

By the way, I have trimmed the heading of this section, in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Russian version is much better.Kaz 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that the edits done in the August-September 2012 period, in some cases changed the statements to nearly opposite meaning, but in some cases retained the citations. This needs reversing.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if you READ the references then you will see why the first version of the article which was mainly lifted from by Mr Qannai's websites was misusing the sources. Kaz 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is Mr Qannai? What are the URLs of his websites? Why should I look at self-published websites anyway - they are not reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It would seem he has recently closed down all of his orahsaddiqim websites, but I wouldn't worry too much, they will probably be back up and running after this little bit of bad publicity has cleared up right? :) Oh and you are absolutely correct, his websites are an extremely unreliable source. Kaz 08:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion section

I am not the only editor to have complained about the August-September 2012 version of the religion section. If you have not see these comments, please search for "Dude, you've changed entire religion of this ethnic group in just few days." and "I've checked that site being used as primary arguement used by those who support the change (you and Kaz) and who mass-changed artices releated Crimean Karaites (without actual reference or source) and this site is all about showing how 'Islamic' Karaites are and so-called 'Jewish deceptions', degrading Jewishness of of Karaims and replacing it with Islam, which actually supports the absurd mass-change done in this article."

The only citation in the religion section of the August-September 2012 version is to a dictionary, which tells us that the Crimean Karaite word for God is the same as the Arabic language word used by both Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims. In the old version of the article there were statements about the Crimean Karaite religion that were backed by citations. Editor Kaz claims that they were "lifted from by Mr Qanni" and that they were "misusing the sources". I know from other sources that there are a number of points of view about the Crimean Karaite religion. One point of view is that in terms of religion they are Karaite Jews who came from the Crimea in the 14th Century. Another point of view is that the Crimean Karaites are a fourth Abrahamic religion. Both of these points of view have reliable sources. There is a point of view that Crimean Karaites are "islamised" - but the only source for this appears to be a self-published website (which is not a reliable source).

I would like to delete all the uncited statements in the section on religion.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are so dishonest. You claim to have read the Russian version of this page and yet you still deny its references to the Islamic nature of the Church of Karaims? But be my guest in removing anything as of yet un-sourced which you don't like. I will be doing the same to every POV and weasel word you put in. Watching like a hawk if you try to mis-use one letter from a source to insert your own Avraham Qanaï/Messianic Judaism POV here, whichever sect you are. It will be reverted immediately. Just stick to the facts you can find. Who knows, you might just learn something. Kaz 07:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not dishonest to ask for citations for unsupported assertions.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! But that is not what you did. :) Kaz 08:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Identity Section

This section can be paraphrased as "X and Y true, but Jews believe Z." There are three citations to reliable sources for the "Jews believe Z" part", and no citations for the "X and Y true". I propose to delete the uncited parts of this section.

There are reliable sources (not cited here) saying that Crimean Kariates are Jews and that they believe themselves to be descended from the Khazars. There are also reliable sources (cited on the Russian language version) explaining why this belief is unlikely to be correct. So let us have verifiable information based on reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Evrei, but not Iudei, please try not to twist the translations to suit your own Messianic Jewish POV. If you have reliable sources produce them. And here is an academic Peer review of the sources which dismiss Karaims' belief that we are descended from Khazars [21]. How do you respond to all the references cited in that review? I imagine you will not respond, as you simply ignore every fact which is against your own POV. I do long to see you produce just one academic peer review for your Karaims = Jews POV. I am also interested to see how you now use Russian sources on the Karaims' nation and refer to Karaims yourself (rather than Crimean Karaites) while you deny that this article is about the Karaims' nationality but about some non-existent sect of Crimean Karaite Jews. LOL. You use whatever you can to push your own religious POV and then throw the rest behind your back pretending it does not exist. There is only one Crimean Karaite Jew in the world, a convert called Abraham Kefeli who lives in Ashdod, regarded by other Karaims as having turned his back on the religion of the Karaims. Therre are more Karaims from other parts of the world who have converted to Judaism than there are of these imaginary "Crimean Karaite Jews" you think you can find reliable peer-reviewed references to. Ievrei yes, but not Iudei (Chufut). Of course you will probably use poor English translations to back up your crackpot fringe theories. But all you will succeed in doing is making yet another laughable Wikipedia article unless you drop your POV and start dealing with the academic peer reviews. Let's make Wikipedia great. Kaz 07:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please could you rephrase some of the above comment in the light of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally have had enough of "re-factoring" talk-page comments. But I know it is something you like to do to my comments, so please feel free to go ahead yourself. Why stop now? :) I'm sure if you are worried about it you can get one of your admin chums to do the deed for you if you really like. You have demonstrated that you are quite adept at Admin manipulation, and nothing much else. Kaz 08:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And let's not forget that this section with phrase "Y" as you put it was inserted for you Toddy1 [22] glad to see you now agree there is no source for phrase "Y" which I inserted for you in good faith to see if you could bring just one source, but you couldn't and have now changed your mind. Well done. You are making progress. :) Kaz 07:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You posted the wrong diff in your comment.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but you would certainly like people to think that wouldn't you. :) Kaz 08:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The complete re-write is finally complete. BTW who is responsible for removing this section from its intended location as a sub-category of the Talk:Crimean_Karaites/Archive_1#GA_Sweeps_Review:_Delisted section? When did this happen? Kaz 08:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What a mess

Ok, Let's get a few things straight here, shall we? First off, yes, this talk page is a mess. We have established that, and we have established that no one party is to blame for it, so let's please move on from the blame game and try to fix it up. The current solution is creative, I'll give it that, but the section headings are all wrong. Also, we have several threads here that are five to seven years old. Those should have been archived a long time ago, and I intend to begin that process momentarily.

What would be best for everyone would be if everyone stopped moving comments, and agreed to let the issue drop. It is hardly the real issue here, is it? Isn't the real issue a proposed page move? It seems ridiculous to spend so much time debating how to organize a talk page. In the future everyone should just follow normal talk page procedures. Here are some talk page conventions that are followed more or less everywhere on Wikipedia:

• New remarks below old remarks. Don't insert remarks into the middle of a thread.
• New discussions go under a level two header, formatted like this: ==section title==
• Do not insert new headers over another user's comments that disparige the user or their comments
• Do not move one another's comments unless they were an obvious mistake
• Comment on the content, not the other contributors. That is what this talk page is for. If you want to complain about other users do it somewhere else.
• Given the above it may be a good idea to also archive most or all of the recent conversation that is outside the scope and purpose of a talk page.

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Please can you implement the archiving.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Objection to archive would hide the fact that this dispute is 8 years long and as of yet unresolved. As far as I am aware you can not do this without consent of all involved. Do you have another solution? Kaz 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page is done to keep it from becoming to long and cumbersome. Nobody's permission is needed to archive old discussions. They are not lost, they are linked right at the top of this page. This is not an attempt at obfuscation, it is merely a very,very common solution to organizing talk pages that have become bloated and very much in keeping with what is done on all Wikipedia article talk pages. This does not mean the debate is over, it just means that old inactive discussions are no longer cluttering up this page. I'm sure you don't want to take my word for it so see WP:ARCHIVE. This is done every day, all over Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I am back after a short hiatus to my WP editing activities due to real world events, I certainly agree with Beeblebrox and Toddy1 on this simple organizational procedure of archiving, just in order to achieve some measure of text manageability in these long partisan debates. warshy^talk 19:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - please can 2010 posts be archived too.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, page is disorganized I didn't see that there was a 2010 discussion sandwiched in between two 2012 discussions. Beeblebrox (talk)|

+1 for great win: Thank you Beeblebrox for reading the riot act over this page. As one who was trying to figure out what the problem was from WP:DRN I gave up about half way down. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - for some reason, one of the headings in the archive got promoted to Level 1 in the past few days. Please could you fix this.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz is refactoring the talk page again, inserting headings over other editor's comments.[23]--Toddy1 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What is happening here

The campaign of propaganda being waged at this page at present is guided by a Muslim religious view of Karaite history in the 19th century Russian Empire.

As the Russian Empire in the period of Czar Alexader I was starting to deal directly with its ethnic minorities, Karaites in Lituania decided to address the Imperial power with a strategy of separating themselves, ethnically and religiously, from the Jews. They won recognition from the Russian Imperial powers to the theories put forth by their leaders Abraham Firkovich and Sima Babovich in 1837, and again by Imperial edicts in 1940. Their political fate within the Russian Empire, was since much better than that of the Jews, and their overall fate was again enhanced by the recognition of their separate status by the Nazi invaders in World War II.

The current version of the article states that they are today in Russia and in Lituania but a small minority that is nearing extinction. If their political fate was improved vis-a-vis that of the Jews in 19th century Russia, and if the massive deaths caused by Nazi invasion in WWII also spared them, why is this the case?

The reason seems to be the fact that the balance of history has shifted, and these days the fate of Jews vis-a-vis Karaites is considerably improved, mainly because Jews have since won international recognition and support for their own independent state, Israel. Karaites in Eastern Europe have become, in general, since the establishment of Israel, much closer again to Jews and to Judaism than they were when their separate and much improved political status was favorable to them in Russia in the 19th century.

So why is a Muslim religious propaganda campaign being waged here on the English WP these days? It is simply a renewed campaign by Muslim clerics to try and separate Karaites again from Jews and from their possible attractions to political advantages that may be offered these days within the State of Israel.

The theories put forth by Abraham Firkovich, Sima Babovich, and later by Seraya Shapshal, which are being re-inserted here step-by-step by a systematic propaganda campaign, were very controversial in Western Europe and in the West in general throughout the 19th century, and up until WWII. They were thoroughly refuted by Western historical scholarship throughout that period.

But since they are being systematically re-introduced here, so far without the benefit of Western scholarhip sources and peer review, the current status of this and related pages in the English WP is now religiously slanted toward Islam to an unacceptable degree. This is because this systematic propaganda campaign was thoroughly prepared in advance over many years. It will take as many years for Western scholarship to catch up again in the English language WP with the Muslim religious propaganda that has been systematically inserted here over the past month or so. warshy^talk 15:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

[You have the unbeliavable chutzpah of changing the context of my remarks to the point of inserting my own signature where I did not sign. The long tradition of historical forgeries now takes the form of electronic falsifications too. I have separated again your questions, which were inserted later, from my own remarks. warshy^talk 23:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)]

In answer to two of your questions, the Nazi party at the height of war was not that concerned with sparing lives, and Karaimism was the first religion attacked by the Soviets. Kaz 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing up two completely different types of "Karaites" here again lol :) Kaz 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your theory does seem a bit Islamophobic. Could you re-formulate it please? Kaz 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If so, then how come the most hostile Russian Empire and the Nazis accepted them? Who exactly do you mean by "Western historicsal scholarship"? Kaz 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that this is a long-term international Islamic conspiracy? WOW, Muslims are geniuses!! Kaz 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The only one of your 'from-the-hip' interjections that merits any response at this point refers to Western historical scholarship. The others are simple provocations, and they do not start to answer the very serious questions I have asked. Until the scholarship of the following scholars is brought to bear on this subject again, the situation as described in my original remarks stands, and it is a very fair analysis of what is happening here. These are the scholars: Abraham Geiger, Solomon Rapoport, Simhah Pinsker, Heinrich Graetz, Abraham (Albert) Harkavy, Herman Strack, Julius Furst, Adolf Neubaer, and Daniel Khvolson. Their combined research into Karaite history completely refutes the central arguments being made at this point in this Muslim religious propaganda article, in the form it currently stands. warshy^talk 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see you mean the Jewish school! Yes I have mentioned their research in the article and made good reference to them. I will insert their names into the article as you like. Hopefully that will stop you thinking I am a evil genius mastermind "Muslim" "cleric" behind the "systematic propaganda campaign (which) was thoroughly prepared in advance over many years" as you put it. LOL Hysterically funny :) Kaz 07:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations

The article in its current form is dishonest. It makes claims backed by citations, but when you check citations, you find that they do not contain the information shown Please do not remove the POV tag as you was done today.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you give one single example since today's re-write rather than just empty noises please? We can deal with them one at a time. Kaz 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"although Jews[32][33] and especially Karaite Jews[34][35] do not regard "Khazar" Karaims/Karaylar as Jewish."

[32] Green, W.P. "Nazi Racial Policy Towards the Karaites”, Soviet Jewish Affairs 8,2 (1978) pp. 36–44

[33] Gurwitz, Percy Die Schuld am Holocaust, pub Stadt Erlangen, 2010 pp. 7-8

I have been unable to find statements in citatations [32] and [33] that would back up the statement. Green's article does say that during the German occupation of Poland Jewish scholars in the Vilna, Warsaw and Lvov ghettos conducted "wartime research" "to help solve the riddle of the Karaites' racial origin", and suggested that "the Karaites were of Turkic-Tatar descent and therefore, were not racially related to the Jews", and also that the Karaites "had little in common with the Jews." That is very different from the statement in the article.

You must remember the circumstances. The Jewish scholars were at least somewhat aware of the fate the Germans intended for the Jews; they knew that if the Karaites were not classified as Jews, then the Karaites could escape the fate of the Jews. In addition, at least some Rabbinic Jews were on false papers pretending to be Karaites (though whether the scholars guessed this is not known). Since the Karaites spoke a Tatar language and the Rabbinic Jews spoke Yiddish, it was easy to claim that the Karaites were a different ethnicity (though this is not the same as believing that the Karaites were non-Jews).

All of this has been raised before.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

All this has not been raised before. It is just your strawman tactic again. You did raise your Gurwitz question before and I told you to look at page 7-8 but if you can't read German that is hardly my fault. Anyway your absolutely fresh today' question is appreciated. And although your comment about the circumstances may have relevance it would be WP:ORIGINAL to interpret the reference that way. We must remember that of all the Jews in occupied areas during WW2 the ones in Warsaw and other parts of occupied Poland (now Belarus) were the least afraid of the Nazis, while the French Jews who were more timid said the opposite about the Karaims. Facts are facts. If you want to write a PhD trying to prove your POV then be my guest. I can review it in a peer review journal and then your PhD will still not be a reliable source for this encyclopaedia since the review would simply sink your theories once and for all I am afraid. Nevertheless, I will insert your recommendations and then remove the tag. If you have another problem with another citation please feel free to replace the tag and then discuss it here. Kaz 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is not truthful. The matter has been raised before. Gurwitz does not say what you say he says. Your claim based on Green is grossly misleading.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very truthful. And there is no "claim" based on Green. Why are you still trying to build a Straw man? I repeat "I told you to look at page 7-8" can't you read German? Kaz 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are citing Green [32] for the claim that Jews do not regard "Khazar" Karaims/Karaylar as Jewish
• If you think that page 7-8 of Gurwitz makes the claim you say he does, please quote the sentences in German here.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Toddy1 shows that the terms Karaim and Karaite are not distinguished in English, so arguments on the basis of difference in meaning (al-Shimoni, Kaz) are unconvincing. This leaves arguments on common name. Kaz says the common name is Karaim, but Toddy1 provides a link to a google book search showing more than 1300 hits for "Crimean Karaites", whereas Kaz provides a link showing 234 books containing "Karaims". Hence, on the evidence presented in this discussion, common name would favor the present title. In the absence of a clear difference in meaning, and with "Crimean Karaites" being apparently more common in English-language scholarly sources than "Karaims", then "Karaims" should redirect here. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The 7 year history of this discussion page shows that from the outset, the move of Karaims to Crimean Karaites was considered to be inappropriate action which confounds numerous issues. The Talk:Karaims history shows that even the very suggestion of merging Karaims with Karaites was opposed [24]. The Editor who initially proposed the move [25] even reformed his views having learned more about the irreconcilable differences [26]. The current naming of the article has done nothing but spread confusion and misinformation. Before and after its move, this article has never even been solely about the Crimean portion of the Karaims. The conclusion therefore is that the fervent and baseless oppositions of some confused and/or misinformed editors to the facts are preventing the article from being named appropriately to attract the attention of people knowledgeable about the subject to work on it and improve it to a worthy standard.

Unfortunately the initial move from Karaims to Crimean Karaites was performed twice with disregard to Wiki license policies, and another user was forced by the same confused editor to perform it a third time. It therefore needs the attention of an administrator who can restore the current article to its necessary location. Is there any admin out there who can clear up this mess soon please? Kaz 09:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The renaming of the article to Turkic Karaims was proposed by me on 11:36, 27 August 2012‎ then almost two days later on 03:46, 29 August 2012 revised the proposal to restoring it to its original location on the Karaims page. Kaz 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is why I felt obliged to place a proper introduction to the section. Kaz 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Move reverted

I've reverted the article from being moved from Crimean Karaites to Turkic Karaites without discussion, per request of User:Toddy1, as he couldn't perform the revert over redirect himself due to technical issues. Since this is a contested move, it needs to have a discussion started and a consensus formed before considering a move again, per the spirit of WP:BRD. This revert shouldn't be construed to mean I have an opinion in the name, as I don't, and it is purely technical. Do not move it back until (and if) a discussion takes place that determines that this is the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, Hope all that will get the ball rolling now. Kaz 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed renaming and merge

Crimean Karaites → Karaims –

Yes, Karaimlar might very well have been named after Crimea (Qirim>Qirimlar), but despite proposed etymological origins, is it correct to refer to people in 22 different countries (to my knowledge) as Crimean? In general we have been referred to by academics as Karaites but at the same time so too were our historical adversaries the Karaite Jews. Only careful reading of the contexts reveal whether Turkic or Jewish Karaites were intended by the authors. Thus it is extremely necessary to distinguish between us. Some other term for our articles has to be decided if only temporarily to emphasize our Turkic (specifically Kipchak) identity and put an end to the confusion. Kaz 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now found a reference (which should have been the job of the opponent to the move in the first place) to where the idea that Karaimi is originally linked to Crimea (Seraya Shapshal suggested that Karaimi are the Kerami-Huns who settled in Crimea) and although I concede that it may be included in the article, it is still not a strong enough basis that the whole article should be named Crimean. Kaz 10:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It has also been suggested that Crimean Karaites be merged into a section in the Karaims article. Seems reasonable. There could of course be sections for Polish Karaims, Ukrainian Karaims, Transylvanian Karaims, Lithuanian Karaims, and Russian Karaims too. What do you think? Kaz 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion,, so engaging with the idea and talking about its pros and cons should be more important than just opposing it because Karaims are what you might see as an unpopular religions sect. Fact, Crimean Karaites is a misnomer, It should be Crimean Karaims, except that this article is about Karaims as a whole not just in Crimea. Fact Crimean Karaims are not Karaite Jews, but they are a sub-division of a unique Kipchak ethnic group known as Karaims which has nothing to do with Karaite Jews. Therefore this article should never have been re-directed from Karaims in the first place but should be moved back there.Kaz 06:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names). The current title might be considered a misnomer but the intro of the article claims "significant numbers now only remain in Crimea" so I could question this assertion. However, it is not really relevant since it is not Wikipedia's job to rectify common usage in reliable sources. We merely reflect what others use. A search of Google Books reveals 1390 hits for "Crimean Karaites" (and 32 for "Crimean Karaims") but only 5 hits for "Turkic Karaites" (and 6 for "Turkic Karaims"). —  AjaxSmack  00:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that my comment above was directed toward the original move proposal of Crimean Karaites → Turkic Karaites. The proposal was subsequently modified. Evidently, there has been some cut-and-paste moving going on and Karaims nearly duplicates Crimean Karaites. —  AjaxSmack  00:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Does this mean you support the modified move proposal which was prompted by your own input and suggestions? Kaz 10:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh well in that case we should re-name the Jews article "German Jews" because Google books gives the most results with that. Or Maybe "Israeli Jews" because the majority live in Israel? Come on let's please try to keep the discussion serious. The common usage would simply be Karaites, but then we run into problems without context. So how about Karaites (Turkic) then to clarify? Actually AjaxSmack's google solution is a good one, the term should be simply Karaims as per Google books 234 results. Kaz 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The final goal of the proponent here is to really 'conquer' the name "Karaite" to his insignificant minority religous sect. You can see the campaign he's currently waging on Wikipedia towards that end at the Karaims article and at the Wikipedia "Project" he is spearheading for that purpose. This is a religious and political campaign that is being waged currently on Wikipedia against what the proponent himself terms above as "our historical adversaries the Karaite Jews." Let it be noted here that the "historical confusion" between the different streams and sects was started by this same sect in the Russian Empire throughout the 19th century, also for purposes of religious and political gains that were in the end granted them by the Russian Imperial authorities. warshy^talk 23:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Warshy has a personal vendetta so his opinion should be counted as invalid. Nobody wants to confuse Karaites with Karaims here except Warshy. It is a simple matter of language. Karaim = singular Karayce noun. Qaraim = plural Hebrew noun. I don't know why there is so much confusion among those who can't get their facts right. 11:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to personal slander: To say I have a personal vendetta on this issue is another slander to add to the one still standing on the Abraham Firkovich talk page. I oppose the narrow Islamic religious and political motivations behind all the massive changes being currently made en masse in Wikipedia content, without any reliable sources to support them. These massive content changes are being made by this same self-avowed priest of a small ethnic religious sect. These unsourced, religiously motivated changes have far reaching historical implications which have to be carefully weighed by Wikipedia editors concerned with the ovarall reliability of the encyclopedia. The confusion being sown here has actually very similar religious, ethnic, and political precedents in the history of the Russian Czarist empire in the 19th century, as I have pointed out above, and it is being now re-enacted once again right here, before our eyes [or underneath our noses, if you prefer...] warshy^talk

We are trying to clear up confusion by dealing with the sources of several years of misinformation propagating throughout the internet thanks to mirror sites of ambiguously written Wikipedia articles. We are certainly not trying to sustain the confusion. I don't know what you have against Karaims or why you are reverting references to us on Wikipedia, but your edit history speaks for itself. Kaz 15:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have already said and I will repeat. My only concern throughout this religious campaign of misinformation and confusion has been only the historical reliability of the encyclopedia, and the lack of any reliable sources for political and ethnic allegations that are being concertedly made here every day. The two slanders, and especially the one at the talk page above still stand. And, for any impartial observers, my edit history is as open as yours here on Wikipedia. You are editing on a single area, and an area that refers directly to your own personal religious beliefs and ethnic belonging. Actually, more than 'editing,' I see here a concerted campaign of misinformation that is based on religious faith and ethnic belonging, with no respect for any reliable sources. warshy^talk 16:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• For Regardless of what we might *think* the agendas of those who post here might be, it is only the references and reasoned evidence presented that should concern us. 'Factuality' is not democratic, it's meritocratic. Whereas there may be room for some debate on the wider matters presented here, the evidence given by the previous poster with regard to the etymology of "Karaim" and "Qaraim" seems sound enough. Rather than slating it we should engage with it point by point and try to negate it using equally compelling evidence. If we can't, then it should stand. If the evidence is equal on both sides, then both should stand until more in uncovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Hubert (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support and Comment The two articles have similar, almost identical content; this an anomaly. First of all the two articles should be merged. There is no problem in opening a "rename" discussion later (after the merger/move) but first of all WP has to solve this problem; i.e. the conflict about having two articles on the same topic. --E4024 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Duly executed. Kaz 17:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I know very little about this people but having two separate articles in WP on such a small community is meaningless so a merge is not only justified but also necessary. On the other hand, the discussion about naming can be continued after the merge. It should involve more users though, as 2-3 contributors are too few to form a real consensus. In short, IMO go ahead with the merge/move but a RfC for the naming issue would be good. --E4024 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason there were two articles was because Kaz had edited a redirect page to turn it into an article that was virtually the same as this article.[27] I have restored the redirect page to its former status.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Karaims existed as a stub before Crimean Karaites existed. It should never have been turned into a re-direct in the first place.Kaz 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Crimean Karaites are clearly a sub-sect of the Karaims and not Karaite Jews. Muthmar (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Danage (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose as per warshy. Nozdref (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Support move(merge) of this article to Karaims (with the plural s). The common name status of "Karaims" supports this within WP guidelines. It allows for the inclusiveness of Karaims in Lithuania (and other areas). The name is also distinct enough from Karaim (with no s — the Hebrew term for Jewish Karaites). I would like to add the comment that a disambig page should exist for the term "Karaim" (with no s) suggesting both the Karaims article and the Karaite Judaism article in its body. "Karaylar" should redirect to Karaims as should Crimean Karaites. A disambiguation article already exists for the term "Karaite". — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose move to Karaims - the words "Karaite" and "Karaim" seem to be used indistinguishably in English. So-called "Jewish Karaites" are also referred to as "Karaims". Wikipedia should follow English-language usage. It should not appropriate the word "Karaite" for Jewish-Karaites, and "Karaim" for the ones whom some people claim not are not Jewish, when in English usage the words "Karaite' and "Karaim" are used for both. Whatever this article is called, it should have a disambiguating word like "Crimean" or "Kipchak" or maybe even "Turkish". However I am not convinced that the case has been made for "Turkish" or "Turkic". It would be better if the article were developed further, using citations from reliable sources, and then maybe we will see what fits best. The article has been called "Crimean Karaites" for seven years; this may be a misnomer, but I do not know a better name for it, and nobody has made a case backed by reliable sources for a different name.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction to an assertion made above: Karaite Jews, and those referring to them, would not use "Karaims" (with an s) for the plural to refer to themselves since "Karaim" is the plural form (Karai — which, like Karaim, is pronounced with 3 syllables — is the singular). The s pluralization that forms "Karaims" was a factor in my support of a move to that title because it does not "appropriate" a term used for Karaite Jews (it is a unique and common name for the Crimean Karaylar). — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is in the English language? or in the Hebrew language?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is in both. If you have an English language reference where Karaims is used to refer to Karaite Jews only and not to Karaimi/Karaimlar/Karaimai please do provide it here. I am quite sure you have misread it. No offense intended but I have noticed that English is not your native language sir. It is worth considering that you might have missed something in the discussions. Kind regards. Kaz 18:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are three examples of the use of the phrase "Jewish Karaims" in English language publications:

• The Transatlantic Alliance on the Eve of the New Millennium, by Snežana Trifunovska, p156 uses the phrase "Jewish Karaims"
• Azerbaijan Since Independence, by Svante E. Cornell, p13 also uses the phrase "Jewish Karaims"
• The Baltic Times, Stateless cultures have a place at academic table, 30 March 2000, also uses the phrase "Jewish Karaims"

The phase "Jewish Karaim" (either as singular or plural) is comparatively common.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is safe to say that in the first three examples you gave, the translations are mistakes. With regards to the last assertion above, kindly provide an example of English language reference to "Jewish Karaim" as a singluar noun. If you can, that too would be a mistake in translation. Alternatively it is also possible that the authors were either Jews unfamiliar with the Karaims' belief in Christ and Muhammad or non-Jews (as no Jew could make such a mistake) and simply asserted as did the Nazis at first that Karaims were no different from Jews. It is no problem however to put a "Mistaken Identity" section in the article mentioning such cases as examples of when mistaken assertions have lead to confusion, e.g. especially during the Holocaust. It is also continually worth a reminder that Jewish Karaim (plural) are eligible for citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return, but Karaims are not eligible except through regular conversion to Orthodox or Karaite Judaism. Kaz 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment It should also be noted that two sites linked as offical site in external links section ([28][29]) also safely refer to themselves as "Crimean Karaites". Kaz happen to dislike the fact that Crimean Karaites are associated with Karaite Judaism and seeks to rename the article due to the word "Karaite" yet the word "Karaim" also seems to be associated with Karaite Judaism hence I found out this website about Karaite Judaism: http://www.karaim.net/ Nozdref (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again Nozdref demonstrates perfectly the confusion caused by translating Karaylar into English as Karaites. Both sites to which I am affiliated make clear the difference between the religion of the Karaims described here http://karai.crimea.ua/karai/religiya-karaimov and here http://karaim-institute.narod.ru/pantheon/index.htm beautifully highlights clearly the distinction between us and Karaite Jews. Thank you for pointing out those two links Nozdref, if I had brought them up myself then someone might have said I can't bring something I myself am affiliated with as evidence. But they are sites only for Karaims from Crimea not other parts of Ukraine or Russia or Poland or Lithuania etc., although we all share roughly the same language and religion. Have a look at the picture in that link of a service in one of our Churches, you will see how different our ways are from Karaite Jews who do not use pews. Kaz 17:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know they are your sources, I could easily tell those sources were added by yourself since you named links "Karaylar" as you do everywhere. So you admit to be affiliated with these sources and adding some kind of self-published sources? That's good to hear. I could expect nothing less from you. I am simply pointing out there that these sources safely use "Crimean Karaites" to refer themselves, two words you have vendetta with. Vast majority of Crimean Karaites live in Crimea or Ukraine, but nobody can say those of them who live outside there are different people. Nozdref (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, the vast majority of us live outside of Crimea, but Crimea does have the largest population in one place. I have no problem with calling the Karaims in Crimea Crimean (as they are), absolutely the Karaims in Crimea should be called Crimean Karaims. Karaims in Lithuania are called Lithuanian Karaims. Karaims in Russia are called Russian Karaims, in the USA we are called American Karaims, etc., etc., etc.. None of us are Karaite Jews (unless one or two of us have been converted to Karaite Judaism under the authority of some Universal Karaite Judaism program). If we had it our way we would call ourselves Karaites, but since there is already a group of Jews numbering about 45,000 in the world who call themselves Karaites already while we Karaims are the minority in this case then some sort of disambiguation is obviously called for. The vast majority of English language published references to us as opposed to Karaite Jews calls us Karaims therefore this might be best, otherwise the older form Karait (without an e) as we were called during the Golden Horde or Karaylar. Kaz 00:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I did not publish those websites. By affiliated I refer to "informal association", the sort of solidarity I refer to exists between all Karaims who genuinely love our heritage. Kaz 10:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I know that at least three editors are going to go crazy about this but time can not stand still while the 20 or so rest of us (User:Lysy; User:DariusMazeika; User:Yoshiah ap; User:Neria; User:The Mummy; User:IZAK; User:Don Alessandro; User:Basejumper; User:Jrm2007; User:Yaaqov B. Yisrael; User:YaaqovYisrael; User:Galassi; User:AjaxSmack; User:Danage; User:Muthmar; User:E4024; User:Marek Hubert; User:Nonstopbrakes; User:Yogensha; User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl) have seen serious problems with the naming issue. Since the request for closure has been ignored, and since the Admin noticeboard requests for dispute resolution etc. have been failures (resulting in Beeblebrox and Hasteur inadvertently served Warshy's, Nozdref's and Toddy1's agenda in taking away the some of our complaints by archiving your comments) and since moving to Karaims, Karaylar, Qaraylar, Qaraims, and many other options are too complicated for autoconfirmed non-admin users to do due to cut and past problems and license issues, I am giving notice here of my intention to move the page to Karaims and Karaylar while Toddy1's suggestion of Kypchaq Karaims can become a re-direct for now which seems will include the best of all the suggestions made on this page.

If anyone is vigilantly concerned about the fate of this page, please notify me on my talk page asap. Remember as long as it is not offensive or clear vandalism there is no such thing as a controversial move because wikipolicy is to be bold WP:BOLD so here goes... :) Kaz 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Google book search counts

If doing Google book searches, it is necessary to go to the last page, as the numbers can be vastly different that suggest on the first page. For example Kaz's search for "Karaims" actually only produced 146 search results when you go to the last page (even though initially it said 30,000). Here are some results searching in English:

• Karaims[30] - 142
• Karaites[31] - 411
• "Crimean Karaites"[32] - 17
• "Crimean Karaims"[33] - 13
• "Turkic Karaites"[34] - 4
• "Turkic Karaims"[35] - 6
• ""Turkish Karaites"[36] - 17
• "Turkish Karaims"[37] - 1

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out Toddy, as you can see "Crimean Karaites" loses to "Karaims" in your results, so I suppose that means another vote to change. But I don't know why you included Karaites. Did you mean Karaite Jews? Because there is another article about Karaite Jews which has nothing to do with Turkic Karaims. Karaite Jews are not the topic of discussion here. Turkic Karaims are. In Turkic languages Karaim is a singular noun denoting a member of a Kypchak ethnic minority from Eastern Europe numbering about 2,500 people who believe in Christ and Muhammad. In Hebrew Qaraim is a plural word meaning Karaite Jews numbering about 45,000 people who do not believe in Christ or Muhammad. The words Karaite and Karaites in and of themselves are unfortunately ambiguous due to sloppy past scholarship and so can not be included without some type of clarification usually available through careful reading of the contexts. Kaz 15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Which just proves my point just made above that what we are talking about here is really religious faith. But note the slick understanding of the Western religious mind, when a self-avowed priest of an Islamic sect, writes about belief "in Christ and Muhammad." This is the same type of political slickness that gained them the favor of the imperial authorities in Russia in the 19th century. warshy^talk 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you hate us so much? Is it because you are a Karaite Jew and you are upset that other Jews confuse you with us like this website http://karaism.org/ has done? I understand how frustrating this must be for you. Don't you think that clearly defined encyclopedic entries would be helpful for Karaite Jews in response against such criticisms against your religion? Kaz 16:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That site, wow... What a crappy website. Why do you even give such crappy website as an example for "confusement"? It's obvious something antisemitic and Islamist which actually fits the mass-changes done in this article, which is mostly done by you. Nozdref (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not constructive response and is in no way useful for the development of an encyclopedia entry. In fact it's just a deliberate attempt at offensiveness. I think we should allow Kaz to write this separate entry, make sure it is as rigorous as possible and then, if it is decided as being absolutely necessary (although I'm not sure what all the argument is about), simply apply a 'controversies' section with more rigorously referenced discussion about the perceived 'flaws' in Kaz's position. This should be more about *how* to include this information correctly, not whether it *should* be included. We don't censor because we don't like something, we edit to assure accuracy as far as is possible. It's irrelevant whether we *like* Kaz's community's 'dot-joining' between elements of Islamic, Christian and Jewish beliefs/tradition. All that matters is that he and his community can write about themselves lucidly and with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Hubert (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your objectivity is appreciated sir, but if I may offer one suggestion, the Karaims are based primarily in former Eastern Bloc, while I am based in the UK, so I don't think it is correct to refer to Karaims as "Kaz's community". Kind regards. Kaz 07:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

True! I should have said "the community Kaz in referring to", or said, as you point out, "Karaims".

@Nozdref Perhaps it is worth considering that the reason why that site is given as an example of ' "confusement" ' is because it is a very good example of the mistake in conflating two unrelated groups (i.e. the Tatar ethnic group of Karaims with the Karaite Jewish sect of Judaism)? Kaz 07:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Kaz raised the issue of Jewish Karaites, I have done the same searches of Google books for Jewish Karaites:

• "Jewish Karaims"[38] - 5
• "Jewish Karaites"[39] - 1230

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) --Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

or even closer to my comments (though this discussion is about Karaims not Karaite Jews)

• "Karaite Jews"[40] - 242 or [41] - 68 (and google [42] as you did)
• "Jewish Karaites[43] - 63
• "Jewish Karaims" [44] - 5 (a bit of a misnomer)

But Toddy1, can you explain why there are two different results for Karaite Jews? Kaz 20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference in the results for "Jewish Karaites" (searching in English language) can be explained by the following text in Google: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 317 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."--Toddy1 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you are talking about google books? Kaz 10:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting strange results with google books on my computer. [45] this is meant to be a search without the words Karaites or Karaite or Karaim but the results seem to include some of these words. If this happens, how can we be sure any google book search for say "Karaims -llc -wiki" will be accurate? Also you can see it is on page 22 of 31, but look what happens when you click the next page. On my computer it then says page 2 of 2. Does this happen on yours too? I think as per my very first reaction to using google books [46], it might be necessary to be very careful using google books as a guide after all. I am thinking of preparing a basic bibliography ref list if I can find time. Kaz 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect page

People keep putting this article on what had been redirect pages. - I have restored Karaims to its former status as a redirect page. If it is decided to name the article "Karaim" or something else, then it should be done by a move, preserving the history.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't, it is against what people are asking for here. If anything, this article should be re-directed to the Karaims page.Kaz 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also your efforts are appreciated, but wiki merge policy dictates that the merge discussion should take place on the Talk:Karaims page not here. but since you have moved things here, let's not jump the gun.Kaz 20:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Karaims was the (albeit extremely poorly written) original article [47] not a redirect.Kaz 20:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no Karaims article until you created it from a redirect page as a POV device. You asked for a move, and started the discussion here, so let it run its course.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir kindly check your facts. But let's please discuss. What POV do you think Crimean Karaim as a sub-category of Karaim serves? Kaz

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The following comment is because I brought up the issue of Karaite Jews being confused with "Karaims (a turkic ethno-religious group with Islamic and Christian beliefs from Eastern Europe) as in for example the website http://www.karaism.org .... Kaz 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)" Kaz 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've checked that site being used as primary arguement used by those who support the change (you and Kaz) and who mass-changed artices releated Crimean Karaites (without actual reference or source) and this site is all about showing how "Islamic" Karaites are and so-called "Jewish deceptions", degrading Jewishness of of Karaims and replacing it with Islam, which actually supports the absurd mass-change done in this article. Nozdref (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

The www.karaism.org website was not brought up in this discussion as an example of confusion between Karaims and Karaite Jews propagating on the internet (possibly as a result of wikipedia articles) until 16:38, 30 August 2012 so you can not say it is the primary argument for confusion going back many years. The internet archive indicates that website only appeared last year and makes use of the confusion between Karaims and Karaites presented in wikipedia articles as a basis for its attacks against Karaite Jews. In fact the article is primarily a hate site against against the Karaims while Karaite Jews can only be hurt there by being associated with the Karaims because Karaite Jews find unpalatable the beliefs and practices of Karaims. It is in the best interests of the people who subscribe to that site (a sect by the name of Malkut Yehudah) to sustain the confusion between Karaims (Tatar ethnic group) and Karaites Jews (Jewish sect), as for example Nozdref and Warshy are doing. Kaz 07:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you've changed entire religion of this ethnic group in just few days. You have added your own WikiProjects, userboxes, categories, and other things based on by your own perspective and all you're doing is pushing your own POV. You've previously posted something to Warshy saying "You're confusing us with like those in http://www.karaism.org does" while the website actually says what you're trying to push here, such as removing Judaism (simply because either you don't like it or you're antisemitic) from Crimean Karaites and replacing it with Islam. I don't know how all those POV mass-change will be tolerated but it seems unacceptable to me and causing even more confusion and misinformation. Nozdref (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir, please stop ad-hominem attacks. Antisemitism is a criminal offense in your country and mine. It is a very serious matter to accuse someone of criminal activity. Your charge will not stand up in any court of law. You are still confusing Karaite Jews (eligible for Aliyah) with Karaims (ineligible for Aliyah on grounds of religion and ethnic heritage). There are no Karaite Jews in Crimea, only Crimean Karaims are there. Unlike Karaite Jews, Karaims believe Christ and Muhammad are prophets. This was confirmed by Firkovich in a publication by the community of Polish Karaims in 1938 on the topic of the relationship of Karaims to Islam and Christianity. He said: "Karaims view Christ and Mohammed as prophets." But such citations are only necessary for Wikipedia, all Karaims are brought up knowing this anyway. A wiki project on Karaims is necessary in order to clear up the confusion between Karaims and Karaite Jews and improve the quality of Karaims-related articles for the benefit of less informed readers like yourself. Kaz 14:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using ad hominems. I'm just stating facts about what you're doing and motives. Anyone who's of Jewish origin or holding Jewish faith is eligible for Aliyah, hence Karaims (or anyone else) who practice Karaite Judaism is eligible for Aliyah. Karaite Judaism is a religion and not ethniticy. Your campaign here is to remove any Jewish element from Karaims and replacing it with Islam without actual sources let alone reliable sources. Here's take a look at some of your "contributions":

• "The Karay interpretation of Torah is significantly different from both Karaite Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, so for this reason their observances are classified as Mosaism (along with Molokans, Gerei, and Subbotniks) but not Judaism"
• "The highest spiritual level which can be attained by Karays is Gahan (historically misinterpreted by Jewish ethnographers as Hakham)"
• "The wisdom of the Karays was greatly appreciated by the Khazars who soon became their disciples (Khavars) which Jewish scholars have historically mistaken for Judaism"

Oh, those Jewish scholars were such idiots whom are easy to fool, weren't they? They managed to confuse Crimean Karaites, whom are "Christians who follow Mohammad salallahu aleihi wasalam", with Jews somehow. I'm sure those Karaite kenesas of Crimean Karaites are also infact mosques whom mistaken for synanogues by those stupid Jewish scholars. And Çufut Qale for sure has nothing to Karaims. I'm amazed you haven't removed those Crimean Karaite kenesas yet considering your goal is to remove any Jewish links from this article because everybody is confusing them like those clueless Jewish scholars done. The fact is nobody's confusing Crimean Karaites, but you're perhaps confusing them with Crimean Tatars, I can tell by your addition of Crimean Khanate tamgas to anything releated with Crimean Karaites. Nozdref (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Kosniowski, you are not seeming to get the point. Karaims are not יהודים הקראים. Karaims do not practice יהדות הקראית. That is why they are not eligible for Aliyah. You are still (willfully?) confusing Karaims with יהודים הקראים. I don't know how many times I have to point this out. Gahan (Hakhan if you like but he was not Hakham) Firkovich was published in 1938 stating very clearly "Karaims view Christ and Muhammad as prophets". Don't you know that this is not possible for יהודים הקראים to believe? I tell you what, you try to put in sections on the Jews and Who is a Jew pages with comment about the beliefs of the Karaims as stated by Hachan Firkovich and see if it is allowed to stay there. If it is removed then we know you are wrong. Kindly restrain yourself any more such comments. Kaz 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A reminder: No legal threats, please. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on Kaz's talk page, that must be removed by them and it must be explained that he has no intention of seeking legal action. Most admins would have just blocked on site, but I'm trying to give a very short period of time to fix. If not, ping me, and I will be forced to do it the hard way. I don't like it, but WP:DOLT forces my hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A reminder: No Personal Attacks, I will strike as soon as the causes are stricken. That is fair and equitable is it not? Dennis you are absolutely correct, most admins would have blocked those attacks on sight. It is a real wonder why no one did. P.S. WP:DOLT indicates that Nozdref's comments should have been blanked, not mine, although the policy is about Article pages not talk pages. Kaz 22:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref - You need to dial it back about 3 notches. There is no reason to be that incivil, period. Discuss the merits, by all means, but keep it civil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused here.

• Nozdref suggests that Kaz might be antisemitic,[48] and that is a personal attack, and gets the reaction above.
• Kaz then claims that I make Islamophobic edits.[49]

On the same night Kaz also made the much less serious allegation that I run sock puppets.[50]

What's the difference? Denis - please can Kaz's edit summary [51] be redacted.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Antisemitism is criminal but Islamophobia isn't yet, so one accusation constitutes defamation of charachter while the other does not (yet) but in Principle yes I am in agreement. Can all such statements from all guilty parties be redacted please? Meanwhile, why you considered the sock-puppet comment directed at Nozdref actually concerns yourself is beyond me. I do not want to be distracted by rather pointless ad-hominem polemics, so I will do my best to ignore all subsequent discussion on this sort of time wasting. Kaz 07:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the posting alleging sock-puppetry,[52] Kaz wrote "Denis" one time, "Toddy" three times, but did not write "Nozdref" at all.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic of the sentence is on Nozdref's edits. Why you thought those edits were yours is beyond me. Although something might be starting to make sense to others now. Kaz 08:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a very weak excuse and doesn't justify your attacks. Also I'm nobody else's sock puppet or whatever, that's really ridicilious accusation. Any admin is free to check out. Nozdref (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have alleged he might be antisemitic just once yet and where he issued me legal threats there was no accusation of antisemitism or whatsoever, yet he kept issuing me those legal threats, leaving this alone he also does same kind of accusations as shown above. However admitedly I rather acted as if I'm in some forum and I shouldn't have done it despite his attitude isn't any different, but my point still stands and what I've been saying is very visible. Nozdref (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are all missing the point: Drop the discussion on personalities and get to the content itself. Be the bigger person and just move on, all of you. All the discussion on racism is getting you nowhere. Accept that you don't like each other, and instead focus on the merits here. You aren't going to like everyone at WP, that is a fact, but you still have to work with each other, so everyone just grin and bear it. I really don't want to get into the content portion of the discussion, it isn't my field of expertise, I am just trying to get you ALL to drop the personal comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute history and resolution

1. Many Users on various pages expressed the need to distinguish between Karaims and Karaite Jews who are both sometimes referred to simply as Karaites where only familiarity with the contexts and groups in question will enable readers to distinguish between what is meant. Lack of expertise in the subject areas meant that poor quality and confusing articles surrounding the Karaims have been mirrored from wiki throughout the internet for the past few years.
2. Crimean Karaites is a misnomer by which Crimean Karaims is meant.
3. A Page move to Crimean Karaims was attempted, but since the majority of Karaims live outside of Crimea, this was still not an appropriate move and re-name.
4. In order to solve the context issue whereby Karaite Jews are accused of being Karaims (a turkic ethno-religious group with Islamic and Christian beliefs from Eastern Europe) as in for example the website http://www.karaism.org it was suggested that the Crimean Karaites article be renamed Turkic Karaites and a disambiguation page be placed at Karaites to end confusion on the issue.
5. In the process of discussion a resolution was attempted following suggestions by AjaxSmack the name change suggestion was altered from Turkic Karaites to more accurate Karaims which was anyway the location and name of the original article until a user who did not understand the differences between Karaims and Karaites redirected the Karaims article here.
6. User Toddy1 continued AjaxSmack's google available literature approach and indeed the overwhelming majority of literature on the topic available in English (using google books as a guide) as well as in Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Russian, and the Karaim languages themselves refers to us as Karaims not Crimean Karaims, not Turkic Karaites and not Crimean Karaites.
7. In the process of name change voting on Karaims, the suggestion was made that the Crimean Karaites article should be merged with the Karaims article under the Crimean Karaims sub-section but bad faith was assumed and aggressive tactics were used to ensure the Karaims article was merged into Crimean Karaims instead thereby sustaining the naming issue.
8. Although the Karaims and those who know about us understand where the problem is coming from and have supported the need to change the article name, users unfamiliar with the literature and contexts are unable to discern in the available literature when ethnic Karaims are meant and when Karaite Jews are meant.
9. The decision making process has been hampered from reaching consensus by a couple of users supporting racism or discrimination from specific religious groups regarding Karaims as "bastards" against ethnoreligious Karaims and our Gahan leaders calling them dishonest/liars/forgers etc.. This might need to be elevated to the next level.

Kaz 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Still no attempts at dispute resolution from Nozdref who only makes ad-hominem attacks, and from Toddy1 who continues to participate with only disruptive behavior. No end in sight yet. Kaz 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz wrote:

"Many users on various pages expressed the need to distinguish between Karaims and Karaite Jews"

Please could you list these users, giving diffs. Te reason for asking this can be found at WP:Weasel.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly sir, if I am not mistaken the users unhappy about the confusion would include: User:Lysy; User:DariusMazeika; User:Yoshiah ap; User:Neria; User:The Mummy; User:IZAK; User:Don Alessandro; User:Basejumper; User:Jrm2007; User:Yaaqov B. Yisrael; User:YaaqovYisrael; User:Galassi; User:AjaxSmack; User:Danage; User:Muthmar; User:E4024; User:Marek Hubert; User:Nonstopbrakes; User:Yogensha; User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl , etc.. If you have any more questions like that please be sure to read a lot more first, not everyone will always have the time to do your homework for you. Kind regards Kaz 09:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

62.255.75.224 and User:Kaz appear to be the same person - [53],[54]--Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is my IP Kaz 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Something that adds to the confusion is that Karaites (Jewish) refer to themselves as "Karaim" (also written Kara'im, Qaraim, and Qara'im). This is superficially the same word being used above to distinguish the Crimean people from the Jewish people. In English, they (the Jewish group) are commonly (by outsiders) called "Karaites" (an anglicization of קראים Qaraˀîm, the singular forms are Karaˀi or Qaraˀi) but amongst themselves, and in other languages, "Karaim" (or the Q form) is frequent. In all cases, for the Jewish group, these terms usually stand alone (that is, without the qualifiers such as "Judaism" or "Jew").

That said, the term "Karaylar", for the Crimean people, can not be confused for the Jewish group. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with your suggestion of Karaylar (or better still Karaimlar) Al-Shimoni, unfortunately,although these terms are indeed how members of this ethnic group refer to themselves, these names are not in keeping with the WP:CRITERIA or WP:UCN guidelines as already pointed out by Toddy1 and AjaxSmack. It is worthwhile noting the Hebrew word is plural while the Karaim language word is singular as described here Talk:Crimean_Karaites#Pluralization_.3F. I propose that some disambiguation pages are called for. Kaz 08:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to get back to clarifying the name of this article with reference to WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA based upon numbers in google book searches. I will also try to explain the Russian results. Nozdref does not get the point that there are two different Russian words translated as Jews. one is Evrei which literally means Hebrew, yes Karaims believe ourselves to be Hebrews just as we consider people of all descendants of Abraham to be Evrei (Hebrew). The other word is Iudei, meaning Jewish, which we are not. Nozdref, if you want to call "Crimean Karaites" Jewish because of the word Evrei, then you have to call all Arabs Jewish too. This is plainly erroneous. Hebrews just as Abraham yes, but not Jews. You need to know that if we were calling ourselves Jews we would use the word Chufut (from Arabic Yahud) in our language, which we only use to refer to Krymchaks and never to ourselves. We Karaims are not Chufut (Jews) as any of what you are calling here "Crimean Karaites" who can still speak Karayce tili will tell you. Moreover, Karaite Jews (Chufut) teach that Khazars are bastards (but that one can live in Ashdod) while Karaims believe that we are Khazars. The two beliefs are simply incompatible, which is why Karaims can not be confused with Karaite Jews (Chufut) also as mentioned, Karaims believe in the prophets Christ and Muhammad, but Karaite Jews (Chufut) do not. The leaders of the Karaims were called simply Gahan until Gahan Babovich who greatly admired Rabbinical Judaism adopted the Hebrew title Hakham for the first time among us in 1840, he was also impressed by the Hebrew calendar which he adopted for us at that time too. This has led many to confuse us with Karaite Jews (Chufut). As Nozdref is perfect evidence of the fact, readers who see the title Crimean Karaites instantly think this means Crimean Karaite Jews (Chufut) and they remain (as Nozdref) completely oblivious to the existence of our Kypchak ethnic group of similarly but not identically named Karaims. Therefore something needs must be done about putting an end to the confusion. Kaz 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I would like to know what Toddy1 and Nozdref agree on with the 20 or so rest of us involved in this several year long dispute. Kaz 10:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.