Talk:Crimean Karaites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Crimean Karaites has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
Judaism Portal
Crimean Karaites is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Lysytalk 13:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)