Talk:Keraites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

I just rewrote this article based on the reliable sources I could find. Most of the previous version was Original Research, without any sources. If anyone wants to add some of that again, please make sure that your claims can be verified. --Latebird 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kerait and Kharot

Can it be that some group at least one tribe of these turko-mongolian tribe was left in central Asia and their descends are today the paashtun kharots/karots??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.96.79‎ (talk • contribs) --Latebird 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For now, those are just speculations, which have no place in Wikipedia. Once you can find reliable published sources that present a credible argument to support such a theory, then we'll consider the question. --Latebird 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kerait and Kalmyks (Oirad)

Why nobody mentioned that Kalmyk Torgud Khans are Kerait? Kalmyk Khans are descents of Wang Khan. It is the same Dynasty which ruled Steppes for centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.31.163 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Where on the map?

It's too hard to find Kerait on the map, I can't spot them..--CzarKirk (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan of Marv?

What is the "Metropolitan of Marv"? This sounds like someone has incorrectly translated something into English. The word "metropolitan" is being used here as a noun (usually this form of the word is used as an adjective), and the only real use of the form "metropolitan" as a noun is as a descriptive noun mean a "city-dweller" (but that is not a common usage). Is this supposed to be City of Marv (as in Merv)? — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkic origin of Kerait

I doubt in mongolian origin of kerey\kerait tribe. First of all "kerait" is a mongolian adaptation of turkic name "kerey". The -t ending is plural part of the word, same as english -s and turkic -lar\ler. The name itself is of turkic origin, probably derived from word "qara" (black). The explanation of such name is that first kereys could have black hair contrary to blonde sary-kipçaks & sary-uysuns, "sary" (yellow, blonde).

Kazakhs usually call kereys as "qara-kerey" (black kerey).

Kereys could be a part Uyghur people, since one myth says that one uyghur had 8 sons, all of them had black hair and thus they were called kerey\kereyler (turk.) or kereyt (mong.).

Islamic historian Rashid-Addin wrote that kereys have several clans including Sakhĭyat and Dubout. These two clans were interpretated as ancestors of Sakha\Yakut and Tuvan\Uryankhai peoples.[1]

Regards, Iliassh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does your source explicitly say that Sakhiyat and Dubout are their ancestors for certain? If not, then your changes would mean to sell speculation as fact. Your explanations above look very much like original research, which makes your article additions suspect as well. Don't even try to draw conclusions about the origin of names and words if you're not a trained historical linguist, because you'll almost always go wrong. In this case, your arguments prove exactly nothing, because "qara"/"khar" means black in Mongolian as well. --Latebird (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a pretty scholarly source saying that Mongols like to adopt foreign names - Turkic and Sanskrit ones in the past, Tibetan ones at present. Yaan (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

a Turkic people Böri (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they are a Turkic people related to the Seljuks, of course many modern Mongols descend from them, but I think it is time to edit out the extremely biased Mongol POV to a more neutral voice no? Kaz 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You really believed in what Muslim historians said. --Enerelt (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Mongolian scientists still not found any archaelogical find to prove Khereid, Naiman and Ongud's Christianity, modern Mongols, Torghut and Naimans don't have any ancient Christian (Nestorian) tradition (source:Mongolian documentary film about Tooril).I think that very few (mainly lords) were Nestorians. Ancientsteppe (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have citations to back up putting such statements in the article?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's Mongolian view, not European.Europeans love Christianity...Christianity is not nomadic culture.Chinese scientist found many crosses in Inner Mongolia but i doubt that it is enough proof. Ancientsteppe (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute

This article is about the history of a modern thriving Kypchak ethnic group which constitutes a major portion of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. It is as wrong to present the nation as a Mongol tribe because this is how it can be interpreted from Mongolian Historical sources as it would be to present the Mongols as a Chinese nation as they can be presented from Chinese historical sources. This article needs to be re-written to reflect the correct language and modern condition of the Kerait and remove all Mongol Bias. Hongirid (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kerait, Keraits, Khereid, Qaraei

Can someone please fix this??? If you look for Kerait you're redirected to Qaraei , look for the plural and you end up here?? That's just crappy linking. After a quick glance on both articles I feel that the first redirecting has to be removed cause in said article the Keraits are mentioned as a SEPERATE people so that makes no sense at all than to redirect to it as if they are the same. A1979s (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed YuHuw (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Qaraei

NB This discussion was begun at Talk:Qaraei#Merge_Khereid_here by User:78.148.51.117 unfamiliar with discussion rules. Said user voted in Support of the merge.

Support Khereid is just an alternative transliteration (from Old Mongol language) of the Black "Tatar" tribes otherwise known as Qaraei or better still Kerei in modern Kazakh called Kerait in Syriac Church sources who currently constitute a major part of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. This should be a History section of the Qaraei ethnic component of the Middle Juz.Hongirid (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The user above pushing for this merge now is the same one that two week ago wrote arguing that this historical article is about a "modern thriving Kypchak ethnic group." I.e., they are trying to push a modern nationalistic Turkic agenda, as opposed to a Mongolian historical analysis of possible origins of different tribes and ethnic groups the expanded geographical Khazak area (expanded because it tries to annex the entire Caucasus area to a supposed Turkic Khazak area before the Mongol conquest of the 13th century). It is just more modern, contemporary ethnic confusion (that tries to go back to supposed ethnic roots that antedate the Mongol domination of the 13th century) to add on top of an already very murky and confused historical record. The Qaraei article into which the proposed merge would merge this one is just a mess of ethnic legends and tales that is completely devoid of any serious historical sources backing it. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mongolian quasi-historical analysis and the Syriac Church documents are extremely important and must indeed be included in the history section of an article about the Kerey ("Kara Tatar" / "Qaraei") people of Kazakhstan's Middle Juz. No one so far is suggesting removing such references, just putting them in their correct place. There is no suggestion in either article about the Caucasus Warshy. I suggest you read again. I agree the Qaraei article will also need re-writing after the merge. After which, the article could be renamed too. There are a lot of standards which need to be raised. Central Asian history articles on Wikipedia are currently in a fragmented disarray of misnomers.Hongirid (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, modern nationalistic Turkic agenda arises. They want to say "Khereid's land is Turkic". Mongolian Kazakhs of Khereid origin tried to declare that Mongolia is Kazakh land in the 1990s. Nursultan Nazarbayev is not peaceful politician, all people know it. Sczc (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you will say any recent publications about the Kypchak Turkic origins of the Mongolian Khereid are in fact politically motivated? Hongirid (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you could cite some evidence for this?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it is all unreliable Kazakh political propaganda, what is the point? :( Hongirid (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that the only reliable evidence is your expert judgment on this matter?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, where did I say that? Hongirid (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If it helps you understand better, my 11:04 comment is an example of despondency that Warshy / Sczc have already decided that "the only reliable evidence" will be their already expressed "expert judgment on this matter". Hongirid (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that there was no point in your citing evidence for what you are say.

In that case, please can you cite some reliable sources as evidence for your contentions.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, what is the point now? Hongirid (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It means the sources in the article (e.g. Church sources) talk about the Turkic nature of the Kerait people but they have been taken out of context and the Kerait are presented as Mongolians, and if anyone says that we need to report the sources correctly and honestly as they are about Turks, we will be called Kazakh nationalists pushing a Pan-Turkic political agenda. :( I would just like to see some honesty in reporting what the sources say instead of re-writing them from the point of view of Mongolian political agenda. But what is the point in saying this? If the majority of editors want to re-interpret and re-present the facts through the Mongolian political point of view, who can stop them? But a report on the reality of a situation is fantasy if it is decided by democratic majority rather than source info. Anyway there are more Kazakhs than Mongols in the World so it is only a matter of time before this article will be corrected by overwhelming majority. Wait and see. :) Hongirid (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Judging from the above, there are apparently no sources to back up what the proposer says.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Origin of the Qaraei is uncertain. Some Kazakhs say that Qaraei originated from the Kipchaks. Also they consider Kipchaks and Khereid to be different peoples. These 2 tribes have different names: Khereid - Qaraei. Do you see any connection? Toghuchar (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support and may I point out that Users Sczc and Toghuchar are blocked sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe so their votes don't count. I want to clarify that much of this and the Qaraei article should be merged, but then the Qaraei and this article could be turned into smaller articles dealing with the modern Mongolian and the modern Iranian tribal groups respectively.YuHuw (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just vandalism by blocked user kaz and his sockuppets hongirid and yuhuw. [2]. Their edits are very similar, all of them one person. 70% of article deleted by yuhuw: [3]. This is obvious vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2016

Image

Can someone edit the image please. It is inaccurate. The location of the Khereid was in Altai region. It is the White Tatars who were along the boarder of China. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this image is fine if this article will be much more finely focused on the modern Mongolian tribal designation. YuHuw (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

POV Issues

There are serious POV issues with this article. It is written from the point of view of modern Inner Mongolians and not from a historical point of view. The tribe are only known as Khereid in modern Mongolian dialects but were not known as Khereid in the original source materials. Although the modern descendants of the tribe among modern Mongolians are indeed called Khereid this is anachronistic to call the ancestral Turkic group by the name of some of their descendants among modern Mongolians. The image is entirely fabricated and does not reflect any historical reality. The ancestral group was converted to the Nestorian faith in Merv (modern day Mary in Turkmenistan). Of course the Khanate stretched over a vast area, but the center was closer to the western parts of modern day Sinjiang than Inner Mongolia. Khereid are the descendants of the Kara-Khitan alliance.

In short this article does not know what it is about. If it is about the Mediaeval Turkic Khanate then it should use the Mediaeval name. If it is about the modern descendants of that tribe among modern mongolians then it should keep the current name but focus on the modern mongolians instead of on the mediaeval Khanate.

Someone please sort it out or better still just delete it. In its current state it is just shameful. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree this article needs a complete re-write. YuHuw (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I would like to invite User:Toddy1, User:202.9.40.25, User:202.9.41.173 and User:Hongirid to join the discussion **here** and refer to that at Talk:Karait. Please mention **here** why do you oppose the recent disambiguation of this page? Isn't it best if this article were about the modern Mongolian ethnic designation it is named for? Rather than about the ancient ancestral Kirgizian group who are not called Khereid in English, except for pages copying info from this page. I think it would be best to list the issues point by point. YuHuw (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better to have the discussion here. Until 31 December 2015, Karait was a redirect page. This means that not many people have it on their watch lists. This page has a much longer history; so more people are likely to see it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what I said, **here**. I put in some markers in my previous comment for you to see it more clearly.

OK so "Watchlists" is one reason. Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to disscuss. user kaz blocked. yuhuw/hongirid are sockpuppets of kaz: [4], [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)‎

I assure you I am no sock-puppet. And please stop calling me Kaz, I have asked many times now. YuHuw (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see a case for moving chunks of this article into a content fork. If a content fork it to be created, please can it be created openly, rather than making redirect page into an article. There are quite a few spellings in English for the group covered by this article, which of course is confusing, but that is life. I think the best thing to do, would be to improve this article on the Khereid/Kerait people.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1, I do not think you are improving the situation by conflating random accusations of sock-puppetry with questions of content or content arrangement. Once we have dealt with the anonymous edit-warrior, there will still be ample time to discuss the merit of splitting or lumping among grown-ups. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, I see this is a sad mess. We need to throw all below-par sources, and establish clearly which sources make a distinction between the Khereid and the Karait and which do not. The two groups are so hopelessly conflated that I cannot tell if they are identical. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. I would also like to point out that I have discovered the current article was renamed "Khereid" (which is the name of a modern Mongolian tribal designation) from from Kerait and continually reverted back to its current state by the sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe which are listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ancientsteppe the re-naming took place here [6] and here [7] YuHuw (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kerait redirect which is an accepted variant on the original English form Karait was reverted to another Ancientsteppe sockpuppet's version here [8] (see User:Toghuchar). YuHuw (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, ok, apologies all around, we were once again fooled by the "Barefact"/"Ancientsteppe" troll, because Wikipedia cannot get its act together and permaban a clearly disruptive user. The situation is in effect very clear. The topic is that of the Keraites (this is the normal English form of their name), a proto-historic Turco-Mongol group absorbed into the Mongol Empire in 1203. de:Keraiten is an example of how a sane encyclopedia article on this group would look like. Then there are various similar-sounding names of later groups, which may or may not derive from them and may or may not involve descent claim, all of which can be treated matter-of-factly in a "legacy" section. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be very happy to see all the other articles on similar named people permanently re-directed here to be dealt with in the legacy section especially if their numbers are insignificant. For example are there any statistics on the number of Khereid living in Mongolia today or on Qaraei in Iran today etc.? I think they can all be dealt with here. YuHuw (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could read German, it is an extremely important language for academia. YuHuw (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the image which is User:Khiruge's own work can not be used here as it disagrees entirely with the academic sources. YuHuw (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither is the Kara-Khitan state under which the Keraites were vassals part of Mongolia or China today. YuHuw (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to archive the discussions before this section? YuHuw (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You can always use google translate to read articles in langauges you aren't familiar with, I do that all the time. I think the general shape of this topic is now becoming clear, it is about a Mongol or Turco-Mongol group which can be traced during roughly 1000-1300. Anything after 1300 should go in the "legacy" section, including well-referenced descent hypotheses. I cleaned up the literature section, and no doubt much of the content we have here can be traced to some of this literature, but as it stands the article is still full of confused or unsourced statements. I agree that the map seems to conflict with the claim that they originate in northern Mongolia, but the question is, which "academic source" said what? The statement "Their original homeland was located between the mountain ranges of Khangai and Khentii Mountains along the Onon and Kerulen rivers" seem to be taken from Hamdani's account of c. 1300 (I did not verify if it does), while the map claims to be "partially (sic) based on Mongolian National Atlas, 2009". All of this needs verification. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much dab, to me as a novice it looks very good. The only thing I can think of pointing out is that we must remember Hamandi's dates. He is not talking about their original location but where they were operating at the time he was writing (around 1300) which due to their at that time high royal status (Mongke Khan was the first Mongolian crown prince of the Keraites thanks to his mother) was naturally Karakoram, the capital of the Mongolian Empire. I can not edit the article at the moment because of the protection level as I am still a relatively new user here. but i think it looks very good. Is it possible to lock this page so that it can not be moved again by Ancientsteppe supporters? YuHuw (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to block you from editing, I think you should be able to after five edits or so? Idk, the Mongols were notoriously mobile, so if we have one source placing them in northern Mongolia in the 11th century and another placing them in southern Mongolia in 1207, that's not necessarily a contradiction. We need to establish exactly what Hamdani did say and report that. Our best bet is to just work through the short article by Dunlop (1944) and represent that as our baseline. We can also report whatever we find in Tynyshbaev (1925), but this is probably not really necessary, because most of the basic facts will be in Dunlop (1944) anyway. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That's ok :)

Agreed, an academic informed me that modern scholarship finds it hard to add much more to what Dunlop already established. Thanks again! YuHuw (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Name

There is still an unnecessarily heavy "Mongolia" emphasis in the article though. And why are we using the modern Mongolian in the lead instead of the original Syriac? I have the reference for the "Kireis" name by the way dab, It is in in Dunlop (1944) p289. YuHuw (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also dab the Tokhtamysh comment which you removed here [9] I removed the link here [10] due to harassment but ashamed to say I did not attempt to check it first. Certainly Tokhtamysh rallied his supporters from those who opposed Timur, that much at least is well known. YuHuw (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I inserted the Kireis reference. So far we have references for Argyn and Kireis descent claims. The other remain up in the air (including the existence of a modern Khereid clan in Mongolia. Afaics, this is just a given name in modern Mongolia.

As for the "original Syriac", all evidence points to their name being simply from a Mongolian word for "black, swarthy". Turco-Mongol tribes often used such colour adjectives in tribal names, this is completely unremarkable (nor do any two tribes which happen to have picked the same colour necessarily share any common origin). If you have any reference on any "original Syriac" related to this, you are welcome to cite it. I noted your insertion of "Church Syriac: ܟܹܪܝܼܬ ; krit meaning 'weepers/mourners' connoting 'monastics' in reference to their black garb"), but this is entirely unreferenced and it is unclear what it is supposed to have to do with the Mongol khanate or clan. Perhaps such a connection is made in some medieval Syriac source, but then you need to cite that. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@dab, beautiful work! :) Concerning the Kara-Tatars (Qara-Tatars a.k.a. Qaraei) the Encyclopedia Iranica is the source needed [11] it seems this relates to the same invasion of Khujand you cited by Tynyshbaev (1925). Concerning the Karaimeans, Nepolkanov mentioned some references [12] I will try to find them. The word ܟܹܪܝܼܬ is from M. Dickens. I just googled one etymology is provided here [13] and there is also the footnote number 99 on page 620 in the book A History of Palestine, 634-1099 by Moshe Gil but I will ask him for the detailed ref. YuHuw (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

you cite a Syriac dictionary confirming that ܟܹܪܝܼܬ means "to mourn" etc. This does not establish any kind of connection with the Mongol clan. It is possible that Bar Hebraeus suggests such an etymology, as he seems to be the only Syriac source on the topic. The first reference to the group seems to be in Arabic, in the 12th-century Book of the Tower. I have my doubts that Tynyshbaev (1925) is at all a reasonable source, this seems to be more of a topic of "reception in early Soviet national historiography". --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you dab, I am still waiting for a reply from M. Dickens.

At least isn't it time to update the "Today part of Mongolia China" comment to match with Argyn and Kireis? What do you think about the Encylopedia Iranica source?

I am also sure the native word is Black/Swarthy as you say, but this is Turkic not Mongolic ultimately probably proto-Altaic (if Altaic is a "genetic" language family and not just a Sprachbund).

May I ask why you still call them Mongols, don't Dunlop (1944), Grousset (1970), Tynyshbaev (1925), Kudaiberdy-Uly (1990), Bosworth (2002), Bosworth & Asimov (2000 UNESCO) all agree they were Turkic or have I missed something? YuHuw (talk)

Going through the links to update following the merges and discussions I just found a reference to a modern Mongolian people called Khereid here on wikipedia [14] YuHuw (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah but it looks like that page was also created by User:Ancientsteppe [15] :/ YuHuw (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI I have the reference about the Syriac word ܟܹܪܝܼܬ (Karaite) appears in Bar Hebraeus Chron. Syr. (1286) 204/184 writing almost 300 years after the fact. Before him, apparently, the Book of the Tower simply calls them "Turks" only. So anyway this Article's lead calling them a "Mongol" is certainly just another User:Ancientsteppe-ism. YuHuw (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RS Fake

The name of Keraies on Persian كرايت Kirāyt(See Turkic page). Except of this there is no place to put on this pages the name of this tribes in other languages and supply so much weight to outdated Dunlop's mistake . In Holocaust period many scientist(including Jewish) claim for no Jewish origin of Crimean Karaites.So may be it is not really mistake Неполканов (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive users

The article is stable. User:Неполканов and User:Toddy1 please bring your issues to talk here. IF you are two genuine users and not just supporters of User:Ancientsteppe's work then produce your sources here. Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Is your only objection to the map, the person who generated it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(2) My understanding is that article is about an ethnic group. The hatnote claiming that the article is primarily about religion is mistaken.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finally engaging in an invitation to discuss -rather than revert everywhere with your team-mate then plaster warnings over everyone's walls if they dare challenge you.

My problem with almost everything User:Ancientsteppe's sock-puppets promote is that there are no sources besides his own personal re-arrangement of the facts to suit his Turanist agenda. Bring a copy of a map published in a reliable source. No problem.

The Nestorian Kirgiz cross image seemed quite appropriate for these Turkic Karaites based in the original Kyrgiz homeland and ancestral to the modern Kirei Kirgyz people. If you have some other suggestions please bring my attention to them in a mature manner. As for User:Ancientsteppe's ubiquitous use of the modern Mongol name Khereid, where is is written that these ancient Turco-Mongol people called themselves Khereid? Native name would best be written in Nestorian Syriac -if at all! At least the reconstruction "Karait" as an alternative name is sourced. Produce your honest sources please. And you might also respond to the examination of your alleged "google books results" waiting for you at Talk:Turkic Karaites while you are at it and perhaps try talking at Talk:Karaylar about your reversions of that page to User:Kaz's version too please. (if Turkic Karaites and Karaylar are to remain on Wikipedia they should link ot one disambiguation page.) Honesty is the best policy Toddy1. Trying to pretend there is some sort of Jewish-Christian-Muslim-Pagan group by conflating them all together and obscuring the significant differences between them is very unhelpful, as is changing their standard academic name to something else. YuHuw (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The hatnote clarifies that we are not talking about a Muslim Turkic group called Karaites or Qaraei nor a Turkic group which practice Karaite Judaism, nor even a Karait snake but this article is about a historical Turkic group called Karaites or Keraites who adopted Nestorian Christianity and were it not for this fact there would be very little to distinguish them from any other pre-Mongolia Central Asian tribe. There is no page about "an ethnic group" by such a name. (Is there?) YuHuw (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

1) "Historical Turkic group called KAraites" is YuHuw's key wrong and unacceptable claim. The easiest way to see that is to look the name of this page in other languages. So first of all do not mess Keraities with Karaites(if some outdated cited by this users authors onse do that it is not relevant now).I doubt that these cites are not fake like his cites of Nehamia Gordon relating to Keraites, originalltuy Turkic speaken Crimean Karaites(before dejudaization that occured mainly at XX century when they started to speak Russian due to rapid assimilation -see the Crimean Karaites for details ). Nehamia Gordon does not mention Keraites at all: "According to the Karaylar-Karaites themselves, they are descended from Tataric-Turkic tribes ".He cites Seraya Shapshal and Zajaczkowski -good known Crimean Karaites dejudaization activists. Nothing there about Mongolian Keraies tribe.No one of them did not claim any connection to these tribes or Nestorian Christianity.

2) The Keraites religion is only small part of the article. Even after YuHuw's enthusiastic edits it is only 30% of all article.So there is no rason to change hatnote to something different from pages of Keraites in other languages. Неполканов (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason why you are failing to distinguish this article about the Turkic Karaits (the term Karaits is the term used by Dunlop 1944 which it was decided [16] to be the basis of this article) from the Karaite Jews of Crimea is because you have removed the disambiguation hatnote. As usual your comments are full of contradictions as well as grammatical and spelling errors which make them very difficult to understand. Since there are no sources being brought forward the objectionable content has been removed. Although the name Karait/Kerait is apparently from a Mongol root word for Black, the academic sources are unanimous in mentioning their Turkic nature. The ONLY Turkic people to use the "K" form of the name Karai instead of the "Q" form Qarai are the people this article is about. If you have a source which supports User:Ancientsteppe's theory that they were nothing but Mongols then please produce it. The term "Turco-Mongol" is being used for no reason other than a compromise for you. The name Kheraid it turns out from google is only a Mongolian family name although used in published sites which mirror User:Ancientsteppe's version of this article. The other language versions of the article are clearly translations from this page so one would expect to see the same mistaken invention of terms. Enough damage has been done. fg YuHuw (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Nehemiah Gordon is not mentioned in this article, if you have a comment about him you should post it on Talk:Karaylar since he uses the term Karaylar. YuHuw (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Same user more aggressive

Неполканов, would you like to discuss your recent attempt to remove the sources which have been restored here [17] please? YuHuw (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this, from above:

"The name of Keraies on Persian كرايت Kirāyt(See Turkic page). Except of this there is no place to put on this pages the name of this tribes in other languages and supply so much weight to outdated Dunlop's mistake . In Holocaust period many scientist(including Jewish) claim for no Jewish origin of Crimean Karaites.So may be it is not really mistake Неполканов (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)"

Usually new comments are posted at the bottom of the page sir. Well this page is not about Crimean Karaites so I suggest you take your issues there to be honest rather than posting them everywhere but. Nevertheless, since you brought it up, in your opinion is it a mistake or not a mistake? I mean are you ready to agree with the scientists (including Jewish) or not? As for your original research on the Persian name, I think you know it can not be accepted for the article because of wikipedia policy on original research. We are using published RS by renowned author Douglas Morton Dunlop as the basis for the article. I have also read the article and can confirm that User:Dbachmann has not faked anything. Are you a renowned author Неполканов? Do you have a peer reviewed publication which you would like to present for consideration? YuHuw (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the discussed "sources".I have checked them. The first one does not mention "Karaites" and "Black but "Keraites" and "swarthy". The [other does not mention Keraites at all. It looks me good known suspected user;s style oto forge sourses aproving the possible Dunlop misspeling by relating Keraites to "Kara" root.

Please explain why you insist to continue EW on several pages, giving so high importance to non consensual, doubted disambig name in Arabic and Persian. You put it instead of good looking, consensual, related to the article map, that was there many years before (YuHuw) name was created.Why you do not put there Mongol,Kirgiz,Chinese or any other language pronunciation? Why do you insist to promote the unnecessary disambig on this page? My suspect is on blocked user third or forth revival.He had the same style with private name K. Y. and surname starting from Hu , claiming that his grandfather was unknown to science Nestorian Christian Karaite in Poland. Karaite name does not look me main issue of this page. It is not mentioned in any other language article of this issue. I will be glad if you will scatter my suspection and will agree to consensual version. We already have redirect to this page from Karaite disambig and we have concensual mention of Crimean Karaites at the end of this article. Why it is not enough? Неполканов (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. I have not been lazy for the past 2 weeks but have been very diligent reading through ALL of your contributions to try and understand more about you. I have seen how you have a desire to control all content on the issue of Turkic (not Mongolian despite your attempts to force that idea) Karaits and how you have tried to scare people away by canvassing [18] [19] crusades against them calling them User:Kaz (since I met you first User:Wbm1058 [20] then me and now User:Dbachmann's careful work [21]. Meanwhile you yourself first appeared [22] when User:Kaz had started to fall out with other users [23] helping each other [24][25][26][27] then gradually took over his work after the tide turned against him [28]. You support User:Ancientsteppes unique ideas and despite complaining about User:Kaz to virtually everyone you yourself seem to have been promoting all of the ideas it seems he wrote about. You also show that you know an extreme amount about the personal details of User:Kaz [29] (If not Nepolkanov revealing his own details, I'd be shocked that Wikimedia allows such Username background be exposed! Aren't there laws against this sort of thing?) and I see you also enlisted the help of User:I_B_Wright sockpuppets there [30] such as User:DieSwartzPunkt so perhaps pointing the finger at everyone else is just your smokescreen. I could just ask you directly, are you someone's sockpuppet? I have tried all the fake URLs you posted on various walls by the way and I am not surprised your accusations were not acted upon by others who obviously also called your bluff. Even so, you say very bad things about that name which you then use against others who try to expose what you are hiding (including myself) and I have asked you repeatedly to stop making that reference. In response to my last request [31] you do so again not once [32] but twice [33] in not even 24 hours. I can only assume you are doing this on purpose to wind me up.

Also your comment that User:Dbachmann's insertions look like the suspected user's work seriously undermines your credibility and do not deserve discussion.

The way to discuss content on wikipedia should be in a mature and confident manner producing sources to discuss and flesh out the nuances to bring the often blurry picture on obscure topics (like Turkic Karaits) into sharper focus. It is not helpful at all to throw in ad-hominem attacks, or canvas a gang to bully users who challenge your POV bias. I have always included your ideas into the articles despite your insults and I just want you to stop the insults now. I would like to ask you again to read WP:HARASS and also WP:PERSONAL. OK I hope that will be the last time I have to ask that.

Let's talk about your contributions. I saw here [34] you removed the link to Turkic Karaites, and now you have put in a rather unhelpful link to a table about Jewish Holidays which have no relevance to the section at all [35]. The Talk:Turkic Karaite needs to be concluded first before we can address this issue here so rather than undo it I will tiptoe around you for now and leave it at the moment until you calm down but we will need to discuss it after the Talk:Turkic Karaite discussion has been concluded. Take care now. YuHuw (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RS fakes again

Kazimr Yusef Hubert won Staufer:Seraya Shapshal, who spent years serving the Qajar Shahs, built on that idea when he spoke about the relation of the Karaims' ancestors to Nestorians.[26]

Actually Shapshal wrote "We already touched upon the similarity between Qaraism and early Christianity. Let us only add that until 7th c. Qaraism was influenced by the non-trinitarian Nestorians, the closest neighbors of Qaraim of that time".

Kazimr Yusef Hubert won Staufer: Ilja Kazas claimed they were originally Molokan Subbotniks

See below what wrote really wrote Kazas about Lithanian and Crimean Karaites:" Как бы то ни было, неоспоримо и историческою истиною оказывается теперь, что нынешние крымские караимы, а потому и происходящие от них караимы литовские, волынские и галицийсцкие суть прямые потомки особенной ветви евреев, отделившейся от своих собратьев во времена стародавние, ещё до эпохи вавилонского плена, и проникшие в пределы нынешней России из глубины Средней Азии. Язык татарский они приняли, уже перешедши через Кавказ, в нынешней Южной России, открытой для нашествия и владычества татар издревле ; но особеннный характер своего религиозно-национального развития, чуждый, а потому и враждебный раввинизму, они явно вынесли из Персии.Казас И. И. Общие заметки о караимах // Караимская жизнь. — М., 1911. — Кн. 3-4, август-сентябрь. — С. 37-72 Google translation:Whatever it was, undeniable and historical truth is now that the current Crimean Karaites, and therefore derived from them Karaites of Lithuania, Volyn and Galiciya are direct descendants of the particular branch of the Jews, separated from their brethren in the days of ancient, before the era of the Babylonian captivity and penetrated into the limits of today's Russia from the depths of Central Asia. Tatar language they adopted that had passed through the Caucasus in southern Russia today, open to invasion and domination of the Tatars from ancient times; but osobennno nature of their religious and national development, is alien and therefore hostile to rabbinic, they clearly learned from Persii.Kazas I. General notes on // Karaimskaya Zhizn . - M., 1911. - Kn. 3-4, August-September. - P. 37-72 Неполканов (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kazimr Yusef Hubert won Staufer :Avraham Firkovich (who seems to have been first to relate the Karaims back to the "Kara"-Khazars) said the Karaims only converted around 1000CE Actually Fikovich claimed that Crimean Karaites are descedents of Israelis that converted Khazars to Karaite Judaism as below(Israeli you do not translation to English,right?) http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001213441.html ארץ נלותם ומהתהלך בגרות כרים המדינה במושבות זרע משפחות ישראל ויהודה גלות ירושלם שיצאו לעזרת אחיהם מעריהם במלחמת שמרון וגדליה בן המלך אחז בראשם ללא הועיל כי מלאה סאתם. ותפשם חיים שלמנאסר קודם לכדו את שמרון וישלחם לפנים גולה לערי מדי להרחיקם מעל אחיהם ויהיו שם עד ימי כמביס בן כורש המלך עה והוא הטה להם חסד בהחלצם למלחמה חושים עם בני מדי היותם קרובים לארץ השיטים להלחם עם תלמירא המלכה לנקום דם אביו ממנה ובהתגברם על חיילותיה תפושה בחיים ויביאוה לפני כמביס מלכם ויהרגה בדם אביו ויכבוש את ארצה ויבקשו ממנו ויתנה לאחוזה להם וישם בה נציבים וישובו בשלום ויקחו ישראל ומדי השבים ממלחמה נשיהם וטפם ורכושם ויתישבו שם בכורשון שהציב אביו כורש לו שם יד ושם בסולכת עברית שבנו ובאונכת יונית שתקנו חרבותיה ויקראום כרים ובסלע היהודים אשר בצרו ובעיר ספרד על ים השיטים ששיטים ומשיטים מקניהם לעיר מטרכה היונית עיר מגורי אבי בין גלות טיטוס הם הם אחינו היהודים סגולת גלות ירושלם שהגלם טיטוס ראשונה לערי יון לפיסנטיא ובנותיה ומשם נתפשטו לעיר טיראפיז ואחיותיה עד עיר מטרכה בימי יולאנום קיסר פיסנטיא אוהב היהודים ולכן הם מדברים בלשון יון עד היום ובבואי לעיר מולדתי פה שומכי עיר מלכות דריוש המדי שירוון בשנת חמישית למלכות האדון כוסדורי הפרסי אלף ושלש מאות לגלותינו הגהתי זה ספר התורה למר מרדכי החבר בן שמעון שקבל חברות יצו רצונו חברות בעלי משנה ותלמוד הבבליים יזחה להגות בו הוא וזרעו עד עולם סימן טוב אמן Regarding Lvov see above-he claimed that some Russians (not Keraites) were converted to Karaite Judaism but Crimean Karaites avoided to contact them, Nothing about Keraites Неполканов (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete the insults please and we can talk about whether you are representing the facts properly or making things up again. YuHuw (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I explain you again and again that Molokans are Slavic ethnic Russians Subbotnics that claimed to be converted to Karaite Judaism, They have no nothing with Crimean Karaites,you are fully distorted the meaning. It is small religious minority like other Sunnotniks in villages in Russia while Crimean Karaites are residents of Crimea and Eastern Europe. No one of them does not claim any relations to Keaites or Nestorian ChtristiianityProchorov write nothing about Kazas and Molokans,while Kazas emphasizes difference between Molokans and Crimean Karaites(descedents of Israelis) :

" Как бы то ни было, неоспоримо и историческою истиною оказывается теперь, что нынешние крымские караимы, а потому и происходящие от них караимы литовские, волынские и галицийсцкие суть прямые потомки особенной ветви евреев, отделившейся от своих собратьев во времена стародавние, ещё до эпохи вавилонского плена, и проникшие в пределы нынешней России из глубины Средней Азии. Язык татарский они приняли, уже перешедши через Кавказ, в нынешней Южной России, открытой для нашествия и владычества татар издревле ; но особеннный характер своего религиозно-национального развития, чуждый, а потому и враждебный раввинизму, они явно вынесли из Персии.И. И. Общие заметки о караимах // Караимская жизнь. — М., 1911. — Кн. 3-4, август-сентябрь. — С. 37-72 Неполканов (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding also the cite from your RS with translation showing that it is not related to your edits in the article:

За последнее время официальным кругам караимства приходится сталкиваться с вопросом о так называемых "русских караимах" - субботниках. ... Неоднократно они делали попытки к воссоединению с коренными караимами, но безуспешно, так как против этого энергично протестовали представители господствующей церкви. Да и сами караимы, по вполне понятным причинам, уклонялись от официального общения с сектантами". Однако, после официальной регистрации субботниками своей общины "гахам С. М. Панпулов в бытность свою в Петербурге зондировал почву в официальных сферах". Убедившись в неодобрительном отношении властей к возможному присоединению, "гахам уклоняется от непосредственных сношений с сектантами"

Google translare: In recent years, official circles of Crimean Karaites faced with the question of the so-called "Russian Karaites" - Subbotniks. ... Many times they attempted to reunite with indigenous Karaites, but to no avail, as it vigorously protested against the representatives of the dominant church. Even the Karaites, for obvious reasons, have shied away from official communication with sectarians. "However, after the official registration of their community Subbotniks" Haham Panpulov during his stay in St. Petersburg probed the ground in the official spheres. "Convinced of the disapproval of the authorities the possible connection, "Haham avoids direct communication with sectarians" -Again nothing about Keraites/Nestorians etc .The article about ethnic Russians that claim to be Karaite Jews.Неполканов (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet allegations used to justify edits

User:YuHuw has made four reverts with edit summaries alleging sock-puppetry by the people he is reverting:

• 05:17, 18 February 2016 reverted Неполканов (reverse persistent User:Ancientsteppe puppetry)
• 11:25, 18 February 2016 reverted Toddy1 (Undid revision 705573583 by Toddy1 (talk) revert User:Ancientsteppe puppet POV pushing.)
• 10:59, 19 February 2016 reverted Toddy1 (revert User:Ancientsteppe puppet POV pushing by Toddy1)
• 05:41, 24 February 2016 reverted Неполканов (Revert User:Ancientsteppe puppets' POV pushing 705778183 by Неполканов (talk) who presented irrelevant citations and insults (requested removed) on talk.)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe/Archive shows that the CheckUser tool was used to check sockpuppets of Ancientsteppe on 9 March 2015, 13 March 2015, and 18 May 2015. Special:Contributions/Toddy1 and Special:Contributions/Неполканов show that both editors had made edits in the 90 days before the check user. If either Toddy1 or Неполканов had been sockpuppets of Ancientsteppe, you might have expected the CheckUser to show this.

There is no current sockpuppet investigation for Ancientsteppe. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe.

By a remarkable coincidence, there is a sockpuppet investigation concerning User:YuHuw. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Capital

The claim that the Keraites capital appeared in the infobox but not in the article. It was uncited. I have deleted it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian Karaite Molokans

I won't reply to the insults above but I do have a question for User:Неполканов. I want to point out that the recent dispute your colleagues have over the Russian Karaites is entirely unfathomable to me unless it is just to hound me. I included every comment you made on the subject in the legacy section even if I thought it was irrelevant. I want to point out that Toddy1 himself identifies Russian Karaites as synonymous with Crimean Karaites here [36]. The religion of the Russian Karaites is ubiquitously referred to as a branch of the Molokans -who in turn preserve the Nestorian tradition of consuming milk during lent derided as heretical by Russian orthodox. If the new consensus is that Toddy1's equation of the Karaimits a.k.a. Russian Karaite Molokans = Crimean Karaites is erroneous, then of course there has to be a clean up on this issue which has "plagued" wikipedia for far too long. YuHuw (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 your friends' [37] vandalism (restoring bad spellings and removing sourced material etc.) has been reverted[38]. You claim that the cited sources do not mention Molokans. Such claims are unfathomable. Rather than edit war, please engage in discussion and illustrate clearly here what your issue with the sources is without resort to yet more disparaging remarks about me. Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw,You have mixed Subbotnik Karaites with Russian Karaites. Please read aggian the source you have cited:

• This book is the first systematic study of the Judaizers' (Subbotniks)
• It deals with separation of the movement into the persuasions of "Karaites" and "Talmudists"

Conclusion of every one except you the book is about Subotniks and no Karaites.You conclusion -the book claims that Russian Karaites are Subbotniks.As you know the Jews are Talmudists.So according your logic Russain Jews also are Subbotniks.

Where you have found the claims the Subotniks have any relations to Nestorian Chiristianity.Shapshal claims were about Karaite Jews but not Russian Cristians that converted to Judaism.

Please follow the concensus and add Karaite staff to the Subbotnik Jews page.May be you grandfather really was Subbotnik Karaite.

In addition Alexander Lvov's site is not RS while it is private not academic site,similar to good known to you Crimean Institute Неполканов (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Without attempts to comment on my family and private life please. I remind you I am not a public figure. I am a private individual who edits wikipedia and my privacy should be respected. I am clearly not who you think I am.

You say that Subbotnik Karaites should be distinguished from Russian Karaites. But Lvov's work (who you previously accepted as RS don't forget) points out that they are the same [39] using the reference from "Karaimsky Zhizn" (О "русских караимах" pages 81-82. in Караимская Жизнь: ежемесячный журнал. – Книга II. (июль) / Редактор-издатель В.И. Синани. – Москва, 1911.– 96 c.). Did you read it? I have temporarily removed the section on Russian Karaites from the article until this possible confusion is clarified. I invite more comment by you on this one but you are clearly wrong that Russian Karaites are not Subbotnik Karaites. Perhaps it would help avoid confusion between us in this discussion if you use the original Russian terms and avoid these confusing English translations. Thank you for returning to engage in useful discussion again. YuHuw (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You told me to go ahead and add Karaite "staff" >o< to the Subbotnik Jews page (Jews? >o<) and so I checked the page and found there are already references to "Russian Karaites" there.

G. Dynner "Holy Dissent: Jewish and Christian Mystics in Eastern Europe" Wayne State University Press, 2011, ISBN 9780814335970 [40] p=358–9. "There were very few Jews in the Russian empire before 1772 and there is no indication of direct contact between Jews and the early Spiritual Christians... Most dramatically, in the late eighteenth century, the so called Subbotniks or Sabbatarians - ethnic Russians from the central and southern provinces - even turned away from the fundamental Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the messiahship of Jesus to embrace the Mosaic law of the Old Testament. As the work of Aleksandr Lvov, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Panchenko, Sergey Shtyrkov, and Nicholas Breyfogle demonstrate, these Russian sabbatarians developed strong communities that survived the severe persecution of both the imperial and Soviet governments. Although the Subbotniks did not, as a rule, follow the Talmud, some of them began follow other practices of different Jewish communities, both talmudic and non-talmudic, even as they retained their separate ethnic identity. In the religious census of 1912, the Department of Spiritual Affairs of the Interior Ministry noted the presence of 8,412 Subbotniks who had fallen away from Orthodoxy, 12,305 Judaizing Talmudists, and 4,092 Russian Karaites."

So the consensus on Wikipdia (and obviously the wider establishment) is clearly that Russian Karaites are nothing but some type of Subbotniks/Judaizers. However it has finally become apparent to me now that the reason i have suffered so much abuse from your team over the past month or so is that your team edits wikipedia pushing the idea that Russian Karaites are identical to Crimean Karaites, and apparently I must have inadvertently said something which challenged your idea, you assumed I knew what it was you saw but I did not and so You thought I was another user. Anyway it is obvious that Crimean Karaites who you say are Russian Karaites are therefore also Subbotniks by your own logic which until now I have4 not questioned. Either that or you are both wrong about Russian Karaites = Crimean Karaites and I was wrong to follow your POV. So it seems necessary to force you to produce your RS that Russian Karaites are Crimean Karaites because that would settle the matter that they are all just one and the same thing and I will then therefore restore the section which I removed from the article. YuHuw (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting how Kaz advises editors not to use insults, whilst having previously done exactly the same thing.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

repeatedly changing the spelling of Judaization into JuZaization is vandalism. Try to engage in something more productive than trolling and Upskirt images with your private IP. YuHuw (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC) And please stop calling me Kaz. YuHuw (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way User:Неполканов the normal way to respond to a challenge is by producing evidence rather than try to alter the hegemony on other articles to make the evidence appear to swing towards your own favor before and after you answer. Tut tut tut. By the way you missed three references to Crimean Karaites on the Subbotnik Jews page in your clumsy attempts. Anyway unless you have changed your mind about Russian Karaites being identical to Crimean Karaites I will be restoring those references shortly. YuHuw (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice how User:YuHuw resorts to threats of edit-warring and name-calling when he discovers that actually consensus is against him 11:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

None of this stuff about the Crimean Karaites (ru:Караимы) has any relevance to an article on a Mongolian tribe, so I have deleted it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Really Subbotniks never claim to be adherents of Mongolian tribe. The disambig of Russian Karaims is due to disambig of both words Russian and Karaite -the first one means ethnicity and residence,the second ethicity(Crimean Karaites) and religion(Karaite Judaism). To my opinion there is no sence to create the page about Russian Karaites, like there is no sence to create page about Russian Talmudists. Also it is outdated disambig,while Subbotniks currently are very small minority. Currently "русские караимы" means {{Crimean Karaites]] [living or emigrating from Russia.Anyway, it is not so critical comparing with your the RS fakes claiming that they are related to KeraitesНеполканов (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

The following links expose your dishonesty about me and the subject matter [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. They also expose why you have been wriggling and squirming so much to evade the questions posed to you. Clearly Russian Karaites are not Crimean Karaites. They are indisputably of Slavonic Christian origin. Your team has made a monumental blunder and you are trying to cover it up just to save face. YuHuw (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Native name

While the tribe is Mongolian the native name should be in Mongolian : Kheraid (see e.g the same article in Mongolian). There is no sense to derive it from Perso-Arabic. Неполканов (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm here in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:.

Up for discussion is the native_name parameter in Template:Infobox former country.

I presume that this infobox is used because Keraites is a country which no longer exists; in this case the former "country" is one of the five dominant Turco-Mongol tribal confederations (khanates) in the Altai-Sayan region during the 12th century.

Per the template documentation, native_name is the name in native language(s), displayed underneath the English name. If there are multiple native languages, separate different names with line breaks. If the native language is English, leave this section blank and give only the "conventional_long_name"

What are the native language(s), and what is the native name in each of these languages? wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence seems to indicate two native languages: Mongolian language and Perso-Arabic. wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The common_languages parameter is unspecified. It might help here to first agree on and specify the common languages. Per the documentation, these are the Major language(s). Add wikilinks where possible. If only one language is involved, you may enter simply the name of the language if the corresponding language entry exists.
e.g. If you enter only "English" for this field, the template will display [[English language|English]].
If more than one language is involved, you must enter full wikicoding.
e.g. If the languages are English and Spanish, you must enter [[English language|English]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]]. wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We are very glad to see you here and on all other pages disrupted by Yhuw. Perso-Arabian transcription was insisted by him so I had to leave it for consensus. Most widespread assumption is about Mongolian etymology of this tribe native name(see RS in the article+ the Kheraid kingdom map + wikipedia pages on other languages), since this tribe has Mongolian origin. Definitely not Perso-Arabian. Неполканов (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Dunlop uses Perso-Arabian? Why? Is there any harm to just showing both in the infobox, as I've just done? wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Perso-Arabian definetly not their native name. Dunlop only cited Perso-Arabian sources but did not claim that Keraits were Persian or Arab speakers. He wrote in cited RS that Karaits were Tatars or Mongols . So there is no place to use Perso -Arabic name as their native name. Also since other sources define the mongolian name Khereid as original name(see the article). In majority of the sources on numerous languages, including English, this tribe is called Kereit. Only Dunlop used name Karait, but also not as their native name Неполканов (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

More on the "Name" section

• Comment I was trying to determine through the edit history of this article, who (and since when) made the very first line of the "Name" section of the current version of the article read:

The name is recorded in Perso-Arabic spelling as كرايت or كريت (kārayit, karayit).[1] In English, the name is variously adopted as Keraites, Karaits, Karait, Kerait, Kereyit but in earlier texts also as Karaites.

Unfortunately I don't have the WP technical expertise or the time necessary to determine that. But if someone here with these technical capabilities I currently lack did that, I believe it would become very clear who is trying to connect this remote and obscure ancient Mongolian tribe that has really nothing to do with Karaites, to Karaite history. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Use WikiBlame to find the answer. It's the "Revision history search" link near the top of the Keraites: Revision history page. It was added in this 13:34, 12 January 2016 edit by Dbachmann. Were you expecting it was YuHuw? wbm1058 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, look at the edit you point to and the current version. No, they are pretty different actually. We're talking here about English transliterations of ancient obscure names. But this version you're pointing to does not have a WL directly to Karaites. Who introduced this direct link as it is now in this article? warshy ^(¥¥) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, this 10:02, 14 January 2016 edit added that "sometimes" transliteration, and this 10:06, 14 January 2016 edit linked to Karaites, which is a disambiguation page now. Generally nobody should be linking to that, though there may be some cases where intentional links to that disambiguation are OK. I just removed that link; there is nothing to disambiguate or link to, as that's just another transliteration or spelling of the name of the topic of this article. wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, all I should need to say really is QED. The first addition by this User is bases on some "maps," and a fake source. And the second, by precisely the same User, finally does connect it directly to this false, spurious transliteration to begin with. For anyone familiar with Karaite history and with the recurring-for-years problems caused in this area by this user there should be no more doubts. The focus of this User is definitely ONLY Karaite history, where it is clear where this circumventing, misleading strategy of editing obscure articles on the murky periphery of the real intended target (Karaite history) will lead to. It will lead to innumerable attempts over the coming years, as it has been happening for at least the past 4 or 5 years here on the English WP, to argue that Karaites are originally Christians (to begin with, again as a dissimulation), and then, obviously Muslims of Mongolian-Caucasian ethnic origin. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you saying is a fake source? That's a pretty serious charge. wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just look at notes/references 3 and 4 currently in the article. The User is using English translations of old, foreign language geography works and ancient translated and then transliterated maps to link this obcure ancient Mongol tribe to Karaites, no less. This article/subject has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Karaite history, as I have already stated a number of times, besides some misleading transliteration play with ancient foreign languages possible English spelling of names. And based on such feeble foreign alphabet transliterations games, the article is then directly linked by the User to Karaite history, no less. This link as it is now is a shame, and it should be removed soon, once the article gets back to its old, stable version, before this user joined WP "recently." But the overall strategy of the User, based on all his WP contributions with this ID im the past two months or so is very clear to anyone that has been watching the developments in this area of the English WP for the past several years. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So now you are saying that refs. 3 and 4 are "English translations of old, foreign language geography works and ancient translated and then transliterated maps". So you don't think they are good references to use here. That's not the same as saying they are fake references. You should be more careful not to use that word if you don't really mean it. wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This article says that Keraites (the subject of this article) were recorded in earlier texts also as Karaites. So I don't follow what you are saying. Karaites is a disambiguation which indicates that the name may have one of several different meanings. Keraites is one of those meanings. Which meaning are you referring to when you say "This article/subject has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Karaite history"? wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at those suggested "sources" with your own eyes. I did not. But I am sure that we someone here has the time and resources to do that, they will find out that these old translated maps with transliterated names cannot possibly justify linking this obscure ancient Turco-Mongolian tribe with Karaite history. So those are really fake, inaccessible sources that would not pass any WP RS criteria muster for the historical purpose they are being used for.

Now, for the disambiguation pages, they are all also the artful creation of the same user. The second one is just a second loop pf the first one, that brings the user looking at them to the first one, and then to this very page, that again connects him to Karaites. Thos are just fake loops the only purpose of wich is to keep any reader looking at remote and obscure concepts coming back to the main issue for the User that created these loops, which are Karaites. And, if you look at the 4 entries that comprise the first disambiguation loop, the last 3 are basically the same, which is the small Muslim sect to which the User belongs. But this small sect argues that their ethnic origin is Turco-Mongolian, not Karaite, which is the first entry of the four in that disambiguation page. But the three entries are all based in old 18th and 19th centuries Russian empire historical falsifications themselves (for internal Russian empire political reasons), that "justify" for the small sect of believers their claim of a different ethnic origin. These are all just convoluted loops created for the sake of obfuscating the reader, if not by sheer forgery, then surely by making the simple reader dizzy from all these convoluted loops turning on themsleves, as you and I are by now. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked reference [3] History of the voyages and discoveries made in the north translated from the German of Johann Reinhold Forster and elucidated by several new and original maps p.141-142. It really does use the word "Karaites" to mean the people now called "Keraites" in English. I think it is useful and reasonable to have a statement in the article on Keraites along the lines of the wording ("in earlier texts also as Karaites. [3] [4]".

I checked reference [19], which you can download if you like as a pdf. The source uses the Latin script word "Keraith" not "Karaite" as claimed in the article. There is also a footnote on page 280 of reference [19] that explains that it refers to a Tatar-Mongolian tribe called "Kerith" or "Kerait". Do you have any objection to my changing the word "Karaite" to "Keraite" in the paragraphs that use reference [19] as the source?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I also have succeeded to found on the web the Yuhuw's "old" sources. Let's discuss' what in fact is written there and how they are reliable. The second source is secondary source of the first one so its cannot be reliable if the first is not. While the first one is pastor's (not scientist) translation from German.So it is not RS of correct use this word in English-it looks like some misspelling that happens in such kind of translation.So the correct sentence is not "in earlier texts also as Karaites" but "translated by Priest Johann Reinhold Forster from German Keraiten as Karaites"

Now regarding Dunlop's RS.I see 2 problems with it .First of all it is partial fake because Dunlop does not use transcription kārayit/karayit but Karait only also there. Second, transcription كرايت or كريت in Google translate shows it is Arabic word pronounced as kuriat .The first vowel is ā or e definitely not a. in the same time Persian pronunciation of this word is kè liè (Farsca: قرائی‌ها)

So I doubt about also Dunlop's spelling correctness.So the objectiveness requires in my opinion the following formulation  :Keraites (also Kerait, Kereit, Khereid ; Хэрэйд Mongolian ;spelled by Dunlop as Karait and by pastor Johann Reinhold Forster as Karaites.Also this misspeling need not to be the cental point of this article. Of cource there is no any sense to use Yuhuw's fake as native name or any other pronunciation of this name not in Mongolian language(Khereid). Неполканов (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Without a reliable source making the connection between the name Хэрэйд (Khereid) and Keraites, the name Хэрэйд (Khereid) should be removed entirely from the article. It was first inserted as Кэрэйд in this edit [48] by User:Latebird but was later modified in this edit [49]. No source was provided for either insertion. If User:Latebird can jump in to provide the source that would be great. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

mn:Хэрэйд is simply the Mongolian translation of the name. Even if not technically a "source", the interwiki link should suffice for verification in such a case. --Latebird (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone explained further above, the Perso-Arabic spellings are only in there because Dunlop cites Perso-Arabic sources. Not seeing any actual connection of the Keraites to that language space, I'd suggest to remove those as irrelevant. --Latebird (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems not very relevant then, one might as well include the Chinese name. Perhaps the native name was closer to what Toddy1 dug up as in Keraith or Kerith which seem closer in sound to the Kyrgizian the "Kereis". It is clear from Toddy1's work that User:DBachmann is proven correct that "Keraite" is the correct academic term used for the tribe. It is helpful to the reader to mention Karaites has also been used as a spelling in English even if it was just a Christian Pastor's mis-spelling as suggested by Nepolkanov since it does (especially if brought together with other facts) help readers understand how and why certain authors seem to have confused the two groups. Encyclopedia articles should be written to help readers understand a topic they are reading about. They don't hide facts which offend sensibilities of senselessly angry editors like Warshy who has no business speculating (no matter how inaccurately) on what another editor's religion may or may not be (as he has done just above here). 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone can dig up the spelling in Mongolian Script, then that might be more relevant than Chinese. According to the map in the article, the Keraites lived clearly outside the chinese border (which was much further south then). --Latebird (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would Mongolian script be relevant for a Turkic group? The map is bogus by the way. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Keraites were purely Turcic. Please see my explanation in the next topic below about the term "turco-mongol". Larger tribal confederations of the time (like the Keraites were one) normally consisted of a mixture of turcic and mongolic subtribes. --Latebird (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the description of the map, the data was taken from the "Mongolian National Atlas", 2009. Can you show us a more reliable source than that disagreeing with it? --Latebird (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Molokan" heresy

I propose to delete the following paragraph as WP:OR:

The dispensation to permit consumption of milk during Lent in the Russian Empire was eventually derided as "Molokan" heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church but became popular among peasants.[22]

Where do reliable sources show that the Molokans are relevant to the Keraites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How about:

"The dispensation to permit consumption of milk during Lent was eventually derided by the Russian Orthodox Church as heresy among peasants.[22]"

It is a relevant and fair comment in a matter of fact report on the unique religious practice (of milk consumption during lent) which characterized the Keraites as mentioned in the article. It closes that section nicely.

I have, however, found an example of what looks like synthesis and original research in the "name" section of the article. Here:

The Mongolian name Khereid is ancient totem name derivated from root Kheree(хэрээ) "raven".[6] Some authors also do not exclude that this name may cognate with Turkic qarā "black", [7] and the Mongol tribal name possibly became historically conflated with various other Turkic tribal names involving the term.

It would be better to simply read:

Some authors also do not exclude that this name may cognate with Turkic qarā "black", [7]

Meanwhile, concerning:

The Mongolian name Khereid is ancient totem name derivated from root Kheree(хэрээ) "raven".[6] and the Mongol tribal name possibly became historically conflated with various other Turkic tribal names involving the term.

Where do reliable sources show that the Raven totem name is relevant to the Keraites?

Also in the Origins section:

It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin.

Is there any reliable source which states this because it looks like it is just an assumption. The term Turco-Mongol refers to Turks who were under Mongol control/influence not to Mongolians. The fact that the Keraites spoke a Turkic language and the fact that their descendants (the Khazakh Argyns and Kirgiz Kireis) are Turkic speakers does not lend any support to the un-sourced claim. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, you have not answered the question. Wikipedia:No original research says:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

You have not provided a reliable, published source linking the Keraites to the Molokans.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My answer is that there is no need to mention Molokans, it is only relevant to report what happened to the practice honestly and openly without hiding anything. It was Nepolkanov who originally brought up the Molokan issue in discussions relevant to this article. Mentioning the fate of the practice is helpful to readers to understand how authors like Robert Ker and Grigoryev (and apparently also Shapshal and Polkanov and who knows how many others) seem to have managed to conflate things pertaining to purely Turkic Keraites (e.g. origins in Altai and relations with Nestorians -Shapshal; no hebrew influences in Tatar language - Grigoryev; and practically everything Polkanov wrote) with certain Russian Karaites whose origins have been well demonstrated originating with the Karaite Subbotnik sect which broke off from Molokan Subbotniks. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea about the "raven" or "Molokan" stuff, it may well be irrelevant. But otherwise as background information: "Turco-Mongol" is normally used as an umbrella term for all Mongol and Turcic tribes of the time, not only for Turcs living under Mongol influence. Its most common use is for tribes that can't be conclusively assigned to either group (which is quite difficult, especially early in the empire where there are hardly any written documents to be found). As the article correctly states, a small number of reported names may be an indication, but not really hard evidence. The word "Khar" (хар) for "black" is common to both language families. --Latebird (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input User:Latebird 87.69.184.128 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This unilateral action[50] does not reflect the consensus between us. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has presented any explanation as to why the removed paragraph would be relevant to the topic of the Keraites. Material like that can be removed as a matter of policy. Your reply here does not really explain anything, but seems to confuse "Keraites" with Qaraimits/Karaite Judaism, which are entirely unrelated topis. --Latebird (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct. These are entirely unrelated topics. This ancient and obscure Mongolian tribe has NOTHING to do with Karaites of any sort or type. Also, anything that refers to Seraya Shapshal as a reliable source for the historical record is only trying to perpetuate historical and ethnic falsifications started by a Czarist Russian spy in the Ottoman court in the beginning of the 20th century, in continuation of 19th century Czarist Russian ethnic and political court intrigue. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Latebird, I did not confuse them, but Shapshal and Polkanov did. It is a fair and relevant to report what happened to the religious practice of the Keraites so that future readers do not follow Shapshal's and Polkanov's mistake. Toddy1, Warshy and Nepolkanov have unjustly tried to make it look to other editros like I am trying to say they are related since January this year when I have never suggested anything of the sort. The Keraite religious dispensation to drink milk during Lent was later condemned as a heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church which had come to dominate the lands where the Keraites had previously lived. This is an inescapable and very relevant fact. It is only religious extremists irrationally terrified of being confused with Keraites which would oppose inclusion of such a harmless sentence. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Even in this "explanation", you keep conflating the two topics, despite your claim to the opposite. Seraya Shapshal, Yuri Alexandrovich Polkanov, everything linked from Karaite, the Russian Orthodox Church, and all related issues are completely off-topic here. The article now contains a hatnote saying Not to be confused with Karaite, which is all that needs to be said about it. As far as I am concerned, this discussion serves no further purpose. --Latebird (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Latebird. I completely agree with your position here, and I have tried to say exactly that several times above. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe one day a group of disambiguators will come along who will see the issue clearly without nationalistic or religious bias and actually understand what I wrote rather than assume they understand and post replies which miss the point and fail to address the confusion. The confusion will continue until the point of confusion is finally grasped and dealt with effectively. Let's not forget that it was Nepolkanov who first brought Karaites into this topic, and although it was me who responded to him by placing his demands in the article, it was also ME who removed them from the article. Nepolkanov, Shapshal, Polkanov, and no doubt many others have and still are making the confusion. It is only a matter of time before someone else conflates the issues. The fate of the Lenten Milk-drinkers being designated a heresy is therefore very relevant to the article as a preemptive strike against that sort of confusion. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that explicitly make the link, and show why one is relevant to the other?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)