Talk:Karaims

Russian Karaites usually means Crimean Karaites

Actually Russian Karaites is disambig while most of the cases the it means Crimean Karaite for example Grigorjev here writes that Russian Karaites are speaking Tatar Language intending Karaim language of Crimean Karaites:

 «…Заметим только, что наречие татарского языка, которым говорят Русские Караиты, не заключает в себе ни малейшей примеси еврейских слов, оборотов или каких-либо других следов того языка, которым должны были говорить их предки, если эти предки точно были евреи. …обстоятельства эти невольно наводят на мысль: … по крайней мере, в наших глазах… караимы… потомки тех турок-хазар, которые, как известно, исповедовали закон Моисея и владели Крымом с VIII по XI век»

So Crimean Karaite should not be removed from Russian Karaites page. So this page need to be at least disambig.Неполканов (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to Crimean Karaites in that source as you yourself pointed out to me here [1] calling it an outdated RS fake when I first brought it up remember? But then you also call Douglas Morton Dunlop an outdated RS fake whenever it suits you too so... tut tut tut :/ YuHuw (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your page for you :) Hopefully we can continue to discuss this without any more mad interruptions like that baseless edit I just had to revert. YuHuw (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Subbotnik Jews does not state that they are/were adherents of Karaite Judaism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try engaging in talk before making disruptive edits next time. The whole thing was discussed in depth on Talk:Keraites and all sources were provided as you very well know. If you have nothing constructive to contribute here perhaps you should go back and spend some more time on something you actually know a little about and leave this to people who want to read and talk seriously about the subject despite our significant disagreements. YuHuw (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address the issue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue constructively and creatively. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* The Grigoriev cite is RS -because it is academic article.And it approves that Russian Karaite term was used to mention Crimean Karaites.

* The Grigoriev cite is outdated RS becuase his theory about Crimean Karaites Khazarian origin was based on bad knowledge of Karaite language and not supported by modern historians. Claiming that Subotniks are speaking Tatar language is total nonsense.

* Subbotniks are Gers. Gers are non-Jews converted to Judaism.SO Subbotnik Karaites are adherents of Karaite Judaism. Неполканов (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your opinions and interpretations are not accurate reports of what the sources say. YOu need to produce a reliable source not just present your opinion on what the source is or isn't and what you think it says. YuHuw (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regarding Grigoriev's outdated opinion see modern academic article from Lithuania University:Dovile Troskovaite.Identity in Transition: The Case of Polish Karaites in the first half of the 20th century.//University of Klaipeda (Lithuania) 2013 on p210 «The second avenue of approach, which, due to the specificity of the activities of Karaite community, is mostly supported by researchers in Eastern Europe, is related with the transformation of Karaite identity. Researchers tend to accept the theory of Karaite Khazarian origins, and apply it in their studies.Because of its limitations — the critical application of this approach to the Karaites history before the 20th c. is logically almost impossible — the Karaite studies are not sufficiently developed in this region. And in the last decades this approach attracts even less adherents — with an exception of more of descriptive nature, journalistic initiatives, which are supported by Lithuanian Karaite community. While the Khazarian approach is rather critically assessed by the academic community»

Regarding Subbotniks I saw in RS that Gers is also is self-name for Subbotnik Talmudist,while there are many different branches of Subbotniks. I did not find any source that the releigion of "Qaraimits" is Karaism. If you have such reliable source I an ready to consider it. 21:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs)

User:Toddy1 discuss a solution here or at Talk:Karaite and please don't start another edit war. Let's move forward not backwards. YuHuw (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Logical Disambiguation Solutions for Foggy subject

Welcome User:Ian.thomson would you like to be involved in discussion here? YuHuw (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, you need to get consensus before restoring your version. It is quite clear above that your version does not have consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However the only previous objections were based upon the idea that I was a puppet which has been shown false. There is a reality which needs discussion. YuHuw (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the above discussion? They bring up plenty of academic sources and point out contradictions with other articles, and you just ignore those points. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am very familiar with it because those sources were brought by me to wikipediait was reverted with prejudice as a fake source before Nepolkanov changed his mind and tried to use it here. So can we discuss the factual and sourced basis for your recent version [2] of Russian Karaites please Ian.thomson? What sources are you basing this on if any? YuHuw (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He meant that you were using the source to make claims that it does not actually make ("e.g. Shegoleva did not intend Qaraites from Mesopotamia"), which does not preclude him from using the source for what it actually says. And at any rate, that's also about another article and does not address the points he raised at all.

Would you please address issues directly? That seems to be a recurring problem for you. Your continual misdirection and misrepresentation is becoming increasingly hard to imagine honesty from. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no red herring, I thought the same as you once, see this [3] but it is Grigoryev who was removed repeatedly [4] and you see that it is my source.

Which issue woudl you like me to address directly. Is ther another source you would like me to discuss? You have known me for less than a week. I think it is very wrong of you to assume such bad faith of me. YuHuw (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]