Talk:Crimean Karaites/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Back to August

I compared what this article was about ~2 months ago and it becomes clear that Kaz is trying to write about a different topic (thus probably the move-request). If somebody wants to write about that, this isn't the place. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO POV of 30 Lithuanian Karaylar also may be presented in this article in referenced and laconic form with references to authors,including exact citing of sources.Неполканов (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. Maybe you guys should decide what this article should be about first. That seems to be the issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Seb az86556,

Let me see if I can explain in two short paragraphs what the article and issue is about here. Karaites and Karaism separated from Judaism in Baghdad in the 9th century, approximately, following or due to a large extent, also, to the rise of Islam. Since that initial rift and separation there were periods and geographic areas where there were rapprochements between the separate, independent religious streams, and periods and geographic areas where the gulf separating them grew bigger. In 19th century Imperial (Czarist) Russia there was a big separation again, that was induced by the way that Empire related to its ethnic and religious minorities. That is the big picture here, in some generic strokes. Since that time, however, there has been a strong rapprochement again between the two streams. What we have here are clerical reprsentatives of a small minority of so-called "Crimean Karaites," really a fringe Muslim religious sect that tries do disguise itself as being Karaite, trying to sow separation again. But even worse than that, what it is really trying to do, stealthily and below-the-radar, by falsifying the historical record, is to pose as the "real" Karaites, and by doing so, to try and steal the mantle of a truly gloriou historical religous stream. Complicated, no? Did I succeed in my very difficult, nay maybe really impossible endeavor declared above? I doubt it. One has to try, however... Thanks for your patience in reading this. warshy^talk 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If what you describe is indeed the case, then two separate articles are called for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So that's what all this has been about? Then Seb is right. Budo (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The history, etc. of "Crimean Karaites" is covered in mainstream published books. This history includes the way that in the 1790s and 1820s their Crimean Karaites' representatives persuaded the Russian government that the Karaites in the Russian Empire were not Jews; and that they did this for economic reasons. This idea that they were not Jews then took a life of its own, and has been embellished by different people over time. It was helpful in enabling Karaites to largely escape the Holocaust. It seems to me that this mainstream understanding should be the main topic of the article.

It seemed to me that the article that Kaz was trying to create was partly based on his personal understanding of some Karaite myths of non-Jewishness and the Khazar origin. Unfortunately modern scholarship has debunked these myths (which in any case are not very old). It also seemed that he had some intense personal religious beliefs, which he put into his version of the article as if they were the majority beliefs of "Crimean Karaites". Неполканов's suggestion of having a small laconic section in the article on this POV with proper citations is one I support.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That could be one possibility. It would be good to know how far the notion that "this idea that they were not Jews then took a life of its own" has actually led to the two groups' becoming different enough to warrant separate articles; after all, it really doesn't matter whether a group's origins are "true" or not. If today they lead separate lives and are substantially different from each other, then that's all it takes for them to be a different ethnicity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There already are two articles: Crimean Karaites and Jewish Karaites. In the Middle Ages, some Karaites moved to the Crimea from Constantinople, and others moved to Egypt. This did not happen all at once, it happened over time. There were already Karaites in other parts of the Middle East. The Karaites in the Crimea kept in contact with Karaites in other places. Some of the Crimean Karaites established communities in other places such as Lithuania. In the 18th Century, Russia expanded absorbing lands previously ruled by the Crimean Tatars and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This brought a great many Ashkenazi and Karaite Jews under Russian rule. The majority of Jews in former Polish-Lithuanian lands were Ashkenazi , whilst the Karaites may have been more numerous in the Crimea (the Krymchaks are Crimean Ashkenazi Jews). The Russian government subjected Jews to double taxation and other discriminatory measures. In the 1790s the Crimean Karaites sent a delegation to St Petersburg, which convinced the Russian government that Crimean Karaites were not Jews, or at least not the kind of Jews to blame for the things that Jews were blamed for. This meant they had rights that gentiles had - which was an economic benefit. This was the beginning of split between Crimean Karaites and Middle Eastern Karaites. The other Karaites in the Russian Empire seem to have benefited from the Crimean Karaiate initiative. Then in the 1820s, as part "Russification", the Russian government wanted to conscript Jews (including the Crimean and other Russian Karaites) into the Russian Army - the Crimean Karaites sent another delegation to St Petersburg, to convince the government that the Karaites in the Russian Empire were not really Jews, and so should not have their young men conscripted. In spite of insisting that they were not Jews, the Crimean and other Russian Karaites continued to have contact with Egyptian Karaites, including helping them financially. (See Philip Miller's Karaite Separatism in Nineteenth Century Russia.)

Later generations further embellished story of non-Jewishness. Abraham Firkovich found/forged documents and inscriptions. Gradually a Dark Age people known as the Khazars were brought into the story. The Khazars were Rabbinic Jews, and the the Karaites of the Dark Ages called them bastards. However in the 19th Century, Karaite 'historians' started claiming that the Khazars were Karaites. A later generation (e.g. Seraya Shapshal) stretched this into claiming that Crimean Karaites were descended from the Khazars. (Неполканов knows far more about who made what claims than I do.) At one time, the claims passed as history - for example the 1957 Great Soviet Encyclopaedia accepted the claim that the Crimean and other Russian Karaites were descended from Khazars. However modern scholarship has debunked these claims. According the Kevin Brooks' The Jews of Khazaria, some of the Ashkenazi Jews are partially descended from the Khazars, though not the Jews from the Crimea.

Many Crimean Karaites left Russia during the Russian Civil War - those living in Germany in the 1930s succeeded in persuading the government not to categorise them as belonging to the Jewish race. The Crimean and other Russian/former-Russian Karaites largely escaped the Holocaust. Some Crimean Karaites sheltered Ashkenazi Jews and some Ashkenazi Jews obtained documents showing them as Karaites. The Germans did research into the issue of the Karaites' race - this included getting Ashkenazi scholars in German-controlled ghettos to do research. Unsurprisingly, the Ashkenazi scholars said that the Karaites had little in common with them - to have said otherwise would have been a death sentence for the Karaiates. (Kaz cited this as evidence that Jews did not regard Crimean Karaites as Jews.)

According to Kevin Brooks' The Jews of Khazaria, modern Crimean Karaites fiercely defend their myths, even to the extent of threatening archeologists investigating what is really written on grave-stones in Chufut-Kale, which Firkovich claimed to have transcribed.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not an expert - I have had to buy books off Amazon to find out what this is all about.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"fiercely defend their myths" — that very much sounds like they've become a distinct people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are - that is why Crimean Karaites is a separate article from Jewish Karaites - the later refers to the Karaites of the Middle East. The word 'Karaim' - is a transliteration from Slavic languages - it means 'Karaite'. 'Karaylar' is no doubt another transliteration - but the English language word used in books for the people is 'Karaite'.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying it seems like there should be three articles then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think in the end, when all the mess is sorted out, this would translate into 3 different articles, and maybe even 4. But the first question to resolve is actually nomenclature. "Crimean Karaites" should be actually called "Karaylar" only, not Karaim. That is because the Hebrew word for Karaite in general, i.e. the adherents of the historical independent religious stream of Karaism, is "Karaim." Crimean Karaites or Karaylar are just a small, not that notable, fringe group within the entire religious movement, and may not even belong to it. The whole idea of trying to move this article to Karaim/Karaylar and calling this small minority of Tatars-Kypchak "Tengri Muslims" Karaim was part of the under-the-radar strategy of the self-avowed cleric to claim for this small fringe minority the mantle of "True Karaism." That is why this whole mess that still lingers here is very dangerous still, and has to be handled with a lot of care. Just some initial thoughts, starting from the basics. warshy^talk 23:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Warshy - I do not understand why you think there should be more than two articles. I can see that there should be:

1. An article that covers the range of the present Jewish Karaites article.
2. An article that covers the range of the present Crimean Karaites article.

What other one is required?

I agree that the word 'Karaim' is a transliteration of both the Slavic and the Hebrew word for Karaite. (This can be found in reliable English-language sources.) It is not appropriate to use Karaim as a differentiating word. In transliteration from Hebrew, Karaim is plural; in transliteration from Slavic languages it can be singular - so people attempt to pluralise it as 'Karaims'. But this is an issue of using transliterated words instead of English language words. On the whole, Wikipedia is more accessible to readers if we use English language words (Karaite) in preference to transliterated words (Karaim/Karaylar) that mean the same thing. (An exception to this might be the names of roads - but that does not apply here.)

You will remember Seb's reaction on comparing the Crimean Karaites article on 2 October with its state on 9 August: "I compared what this article was about ~2 months ago and it becomes clear that Kaz is trying to write about a different topic". Part of the problem was that by using different non-English words to describe the same thing, it was not obvious that he was talking about the same thing. The other problem was that the 2 October version was a POV article, written on the basis that truth is a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit current purposes. So the 2 October version gave great weight to what its editor believed, and dismissed modern scholarship in two lines as the work of Jews.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some questions for anyone who can answer. First of all, it seems that in the East European languages Karaim is a singular word (e.g. Turkic plural Karaimlar), but also Karay is a singular word (Turkic plural Karaylar). So my questions are:

1. Why two words to refer to the same thing?
2. Are Karaylar and Karaimlar the same people or different people?
3. Is the Hebrew word Karaim plural or singular? Budo
4. To avoid confusion, which group Karaimlar, Karaylar or another group (in which case please provide the name) refers unequivocally to the Karaite Jews only?
5. Which name unequivocally refers only to the Syncretic/Universalist group which mixes paganism with christianity Judaism and Islam?
6. Why does the article refer to Lithuanian and Russian "Karaites" (I am confused whether that word in this article refers to Karaylar, or Karaimlar, or Karaite Jews) as Crimean?

I think that is it for now. Budo (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try to answer Toddy1's and Budo's questions here in short, the best I can. The matter whole matter is very complicated and very sensitive and it is still going to take a long time to sort all the entire mess based on up-to-date reliable sources. This are just some outlines for future development/improvement work.

The three basic articles I am talking about, from material that currently exists in the two WP articles Toddy1 point to above, are:

1- "Karaite Judaism" or "Karaism" (as the lede there already says).

2- "Karaism in Eastern Europe" - which is the current article after improved and renamed, and which would include at least 3 extensive, detailed historical sections (a. Before the Russian Empire; b. The Russian Empire period; and c. After World War I and to the present.)

3- "Crimean Karaites" or "Karaylar," which would be the article about the fringe, almost extinct Tatar-Kipchak supposed Khazar descendants, which the self-avowed "handicapped" cleric created to "maintain their historical memory alive on WP" as they in reality disappear and vanish.

The fourth article, that needs to be completely rewritten is the "Karaim Language" article. It should be called "Karaite Languages," and should be a comprehensive survey of all languages that were used by Karaites throughout history in the different areas of their settlement. The current article is just a small section of it.

In response to Budo: The whole mess about names in Turkic and in Russian is just that, confusion sown to obfuscate and conceal the real issue here, i.e., "Karaim" (Hebrew plural; singular: Karai, with accent in the last vowel) is the Hebrew word for Karaites. In Russia, during the Imperial period, when they were trying to separate their political and economic fate from that of the discriminated Jews, Karaite leaders used the Hebrew word directly when addressing the local imperial authorities in the vernacular (mainly Russian) to emphasize their own separate identity. But this generic Hebrew name, then used in the vernaculars, encompassed various types of ethnic and religious Karaites (of which only a minority were "Karaylar" or Crimean Karaites), as Toddy1 started to explain above. I hope this helps, but the work ahead of collecting the material directly from up-to-date reliable sources is long and difficult. warshy^talk 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

[Also in the scope of the work ahead outlined above are the current articles on Abraham Firkovich (where there are long discussions pertaining to the confict that developed), Sima Babovich (currently only a short, incomplete stub), Sheraya Shapshal, and Mordechai Sultansky (a new article/page that still needs to be created on WP). These are the Eastern European Karaite leaders who drove the political campaign within the Russian Empire to really create a separate identity for the Karaites in Eastern Europe, from "scratch" as it were, from their separate alleged ethnic origins in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. warshy^talk 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]

Thank you for answering some of my questions Warshy (BTW you might find this article on the word Handicapped useful). So I still have some questions remaining:

1. Are Karaylar and Karaimlar the same people or different people?
2. Which name unequivocally refers only to the Syncretic/Universalist group which mixes paganism with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam etc.?
3. Concernign one of the three articles you suggested, What is the advantage of calling the Lithuanian and Russian "Karaites" (I am confused whether that word in this article refers to Karaylar, or Karaimlar, or Karaite Jews) by the name Crimean Karaites?
4. Concerning another of the three articles you suggested, is Karaism in Eastern Europe the same as Karaimism (I want to be clear I don't mean Karaism which I understand now only refers to Karaite Judaism right?)? Or are these two different religious confessions again?
5. Which confession did Benjamin Aga belong to?
6. And a little off topic but does Неполканов mean anti-Polkanov? I see Неполканов has been very active on the Russian pages and here and I see that Polkanov's publications were referred to a lot in the previous version of the article, so am wondering what is the deal with this Polkanov?

Many thanks. Budo (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Very good questions Budo! And in the process you also found out for us the first leader of the Eastern European Karaites (Benjamin Aga), even before Abraham Firkovich, still at the time of Catherine the Great, in the first contact with the Imperial powers to which Toddy1 gave a time frame above. Regarding your questions:

1. In my view we shouldn't be multiplying terms and enhancing the great confusion that already exists. There isn't such a thing as "Karaimlar" in my view, this is only a variation that helps sow more confusion. The "Crimean Karaites" minority within Eastern European Karaites are Karaylar, and only this name should be used, in my view.
2. Your description of the above "Karaylar" is pretty good. These are the ethnic Tatars/Kypchak that are allegedly descendants of the Khazars, and whose religion nowadays, based on the views of a "reading challenged" self-avowed priest of the sect is this Universalist syncretism you point to. Or, as the cleric even prefers, it is an oxymoronic "Islamic Mosaism" sect.
3. "Karaism in Eastern Europe" would include a section on the Karaylar above, but it would also include a section on Ukrainian and Lituanian Karaites such as Aga and Firkovich, which are not ethnically Karaylar at their origins. Because the Kypchak fighting people defended the Crimea from Muslim expansion, and where then also brought up to Lithuania to defend the fortresses, they probaly intermarried with Eastern European Karaites, helping later make the case for the original ethnic differences between Karaites and Jews in the Russian Empire in the 19th century.
4. Benjamin Aga, ethnically, from the stub, is probably very similar in his origins and upbringing as Abraham Firkovich. These were originally Karaites, that later, after they succeded in getting the attention of the Russian Imperial authorities to their ethnic claims, went ahead and forged a separate Khazar ethnic origin for all Eastern European Karaites.
5. Good questions about Polkanov and Неполканов. I had the same questions a couple of days ago, but it is very good that you ask, so we can get a little better enlightened in current Russian ethnic disputes. Thanks, warshy^talk 16:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced that there need to be separate articles for Eastern European Karaites and Crimean Karaites. Their histories are intertwined. Karaites in Poland during the German occupation were Tatar-speaking just like Karaites from the Crimea.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about the Middle Ages (since say the 14th c when the Lithuanians brought the fighting Tatars do defend their fortreses) up to the whole reconfiguring in 19th century Imperial Russia. In the 15th century, and up to the 19th, not all Karaites in Lithuania were the fighting Tatars. There were simple, plain Hebrew speaking Karaites such as Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, who were not "Karaylar" at all. Only after 1830 they get progressively all mixed up (and intermarried also), so in the period you speak about, they seem to be one and the same. Also, in the special period you speak about (WWII/Holocaust), no one would there even hint that they could speak Hebrew, or that they were anything other than pure "Khazars" in ethnicity. There are significant historical differences between different periods, especially before Firkovich and after Firkovich... warshy^talk 20:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand.

Please could we try doing the Crimean and other Eastern European as one article, with separate sections for different groups at different times, and maybe split later if it gets too big?

Certainly! And all this in any case is future work, that I, for one, as a volunteer editor (i.e., one that edits at work, as part of the day-to-day multi-tasking at the day job), don't even know when I'll be able to undertake. In the meantime, nice work below on the more recent English sources. I, myself, am still struggling to catch up with the Western scholarship on the subject from the end of the 19th century and up to the 1970's. About current adherents to Firkovich's and Shapshal's theories, I believe we've met a quite fierce, though maybe also a slightly "reading-challenged" one around here lately. :<) warshy^talk 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Warshy. Hehe me too same as you multi-tasking at the day job. I see some logical problems with a couple of your suggestions for future direction of the article (e.g. does an article about the development of Christianity need to argue how Jewish the early Saints and Church Fathers were or were not?), but thank you for taking time to try and answer my questions. I think I see where this is going now. Budo (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What Firkovich claimed, and what he did not claim

Kevin Brook's The Jews of Khazaria, 2nd edition, p232 says that Firkovich "emphasized [sic] the Turkic connections of the eastern European Karaites, but he did not himself claim that they were Khazars, except to claim that the Khazars had adopted Karaism. In fact, he claimed that the Karaites were a separate group of Israelites who had split in biblical times from rabbinical Jews. Shapshal was the mastermind behind creating the belief that Karaites were the actual ethnic descendents of medieval Khazars and Cumans. Modern Crimean Karaites fiercely defend their false identity... The claim that Karaite anti-Talmudists of Middle Eastern origin have a connection with Talmudic Turkic Khazar scholars of the steppe whom they criticized [sic] is untenable." In pages 228-232 Brook says that the Crimean and Polish Karaites are of Middle Eastern origin.

Philip Miller's Karaite Separatism in Nineteen-Century Russia, 1993 edition, p 7 says "The so-called 'Firkovich thesis' was nowhere spelled out in detail, but its basic conclusions were that the Karaite Khazars migrated southward, creating the Karaite communities in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Fustat during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Although now generaly regarded as historically incorrect, the thesis found many supporters over the past century. Indeed it still has its adherents." (Fustat is in Egypt.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Chufut-Kale

I have opened a move discussion regarding the old Crimean Karaite town of Chufut-Kale. See Talk:Juft Qale#Proposal to rename this article Chufut-Kale--Toddy1 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course Chufut Kale.Even Karaylar recently have decided that Juft Kale is problematic name see: http://kale.at.ua/news/o_nazvanii_nacionalnoj_svjatyni_krymskikh_karaimov_oficialno_imenuemoj_chufut_kale

" Крымские караимы всегда называли крепость «Кале», реже – «Чуфт Кале», «Чифт Кале» и «Джуфт Кале». На памятниках родового кладбища и в национальной литературе чаще упоминается «Кале», в устной речи – «Кале» и «Джуфт Кале». Старейшины предпочитают древний этноним «Кале». " /2012-03-01-118 Неполканов (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone translate Неполканов please? Budo (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See my translation and interpretation at Talk:Juft Qale#Proposal to rename this article Chufut-Kale Неполканов (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Karaims proposed for deletion

I have proposed the deletion of the bogus wikiproject that set up as part of the rename discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Karaims.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Karaims

Template:WikiProject Karaims has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkic Karaites - Edit request

This is a Turkic people. As they have dispersed long ago from Crimea and at present live in different parts of the world it is not correct to use this name. As the denominations that they prefer to define themselves such as Karaims and Karaylar have been rejected (or better denied) maybe it would be better to rename the article "Turkic Karaites". As important as that is the fact that although in its origins this ethnic group might have had a relationship with Judaism, neither they consider themselvels as Jews nor they are considered Jewish by the Jews. So the unnecessary (thus wrong) reference within the article to Karaite Judaism should be removed. This is the least that an almost extinct community deserves from WP. I will be excused from any further discussions as I am not an expert on this issue... --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the Turkic nature of these so-called "Karaites" needs to be emphasised, and certainly "!Crimean" simply does not do the trick and it is also just a tad too Crimea-centric in POV really. I don't see what is wrong with User:Warshy's and User:Imeriki al-Shimoni's suggestion of Karaylar, which is the native Turkic name and not likely to be confused with any of the other Karaites. There is a very good article about the distinction between Karaylar and all other Karaites here http://www.karaite-korner.org/holocaust.htm Budo (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunaly the "Turkic people" it is not exact name.It is like calling American Jews "German people",because Yiddish has mainly German words .About 100 years most of Karaylar do not speak Karaim language due to extensive assimilation in Antisemitic environment,the main factor in denying of their Semitic roots and creation of the alternative mythology.From the other hand Turkish Karaite Jews,speaking the Crimean Karaim language do not consider modern Karaylar as Jews,due to last 100 years of their mainly mixed marriages prohibited in Karaite Judaism.See "Abraham Kefeli, Tatiana Kefeli. Our brothers — Istanbul Karaites // Album «Karaites of Turkey»/ compiled by V. Kefeli — Simferopol-Slippery Rock: International Institute of Crimean Karaites, 2005. — pp. 6–10" Currently most of Kalaylar have only one of the parent or even grandfathers Karaim "Crimean Karaim" name is also problematic ,because the Crimean origin of all Karaylar is not evident.So I suggest name "Karaim(folk)" or "Eastern European Karaim" or "Karaylar" Неполканов (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Nehamia's Gordon Article, IMHO , ignores the fact that cites like "Russian [Karaylar-]Karaism was a recognition of the divinity of Jesus and Mohammed." are due to misunderstanding that the authors of this theory really are atheists (like Shapshal) or Christians like French Karaims. This statement really is distortion of Karaite Judaism consideration of of Jesus and Mohammed as prophets of "their folk"(of Muslims and Christians) but not prophets of Karaite Jews.Some of such claims were invented in pre-Holocaust period to approve that Karaimism is not Jewish religion.Неполканов (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you guys do a preliminary search in scholarly sources to see which terms are used the most in English. That should make it much easier than all of you going ten rounds over your personal opinions or preferences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It already have decided that the article base will be Russian wikipage.So it is problematic to do this without citing Russian sources. Please consider that the 99.99% Karaylar publications are and were in Russian.Actually there are about tens pages regarding Crimean Karaites in Russian wikipedia,writen by tens of editors, So your requirement to English RS only will affect significantly the page value. There are enough Russian speaking editors of this page to assure the reliability of Russian citing.Неполканов (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't help you much using other languages to determine what the term is in English; for the title, use English only. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@User:E4024, I can see that there is a distinction between Crimean Karaites and other Karaites based on Turkicness, but I suggest a methodical approach.

@User:Seb az86556, thank you for the suggestion. This is what I have come up with.

• Thanks to a spelling mistake, found a non-book result in the google book search which referred to Crimean Karait Jews where Karait is spelled with no "e" see here (which I guess is probably also the author's spelling mistake). So I decided that google books results are not to be trusted, and that I would have to check every result on each page of the results I get to make sure that they are all books only.
• Inspired to check for other spellings and variations I also noticed that one UNESCO document refers to Karaits with no e see here
• I also checked Karaites + Crimea which gave 372 results on 38 pages here although there is no way to know for certain that all of these books speak specifically about Karaite Jews in Crimea or whether they are just about Karaites in general and somewhere in the book also Crimea is mentioned. So this result is not very useful unless someone wants to go and spend some considerable money to do some original research.
• For "Karaites in Crimea" I found 26 results on 3 pages (all books) here
• There are 124 results on 13 pages at google books for "Crimean Karaites" see here and all but 1 of them are books.
• Karaylar is a term which is certainly so specialist that there is little doubt that any book results with this term could only be on the topic of the Kipchak Turkic Tengri'its. The results gave 87 results on 9 pages here
• For the variation Karaims I got 806 results on 81 pages here and all but 1 of them are books.

Now of course not all of the book results are certainly on the topic, neither are they all peer reviewed, and some are even novels! But what is absolutely clear, is that from the google book results alone Karaims is more common English usage than any of the other terms. So more advanced search techniques need to be used to refine the results to be sure they are on the topic. This is what I got.

• Karaites + Turkic 149 results on 15 pages here
• Karaims + Turkic 324 results on 33 pages here

However, I suggest caution in more advanced search criteria since some searches which are too broad for the content of this article (but anyway noteworthy for the problem they highlighted) "Karaite OR Karaites" gave 946 results on 95 pages here while Karaites gave 908 on 100 pages here and 908 results on 91 pages for Karaite here proving that google advanced search criteria is faulty.

If I have time I may try to prepare a booklist from what is available for free on google books. In the meantime it seems Karaims may be the best term. I would like some feedback and suggestions. Budo (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

At least the suggested addition of "Turkic" is out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? According to the results it is a very good qualifier! Say for example Karaims (Turkic). But Karaylar on the other hand I have definitely changed my mind about as a result of further reading. Karaylar is certainly out. In fact there are only a few dozen publications where Karaylar are mentioned in discussion of Karaites and even then it is sometimes in a footnote or a title of a non-English reference. It seems very much to be the case that is is a mistake to equate Karaylar with Karaites. Nehemiah Gordon's article scratches the surface of the errors resulting from not distinguishing Karaites from Karaylar. If there is any relation between Karaites and Karaylar, it is only because the leaders of the Karaites of Eastern Europe opted to identify themselves with the Karaylar (more correctly Qaraylar) an unrelated Kypchak group of central asia in order to avoid difficulties under the Tsars and the Nazis. The Karaites of Eastern Europe obviously also changed the elements of their religion accordingly. As a result the "spy" Seraya Shapshal even managed to use this to his advantage in convincing Mohammad Ali Shah to grant him the title Kahan over the Karaylar in Turbat-i-Haidari. A pretty remarkable feat! Though I imagine not witout cosiderable support from the Russians. Anyway the point is Karaylar certainly should not redirect here. Although the tribe does deserve a small mention in the article. Budo (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

According Qaraylar modern mythology Shapshal got Khan(not Kahan) title. Obviously this mythology was created in Post Soviet era. As usual it is not supported by any RS dated before 1990's. I personally never have heard about any Karaylar in Persia. Term Karaylar was created by secular Russian speakers and not Turkic speakers. Please refer to http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/nationality_population/nationality_popul1/select_51/?botton=cens_db&box=5.1W&k_t=00&p=50&rz=1_1&rz_b=2_1&n_page=3 to see the real numbers of Turkic speaking people between Karaylar.

Shapshal's secular nationalism was always criticized by religious Karaites ,see details with reference to RS at http://bakhtawiacademy.livejournal.com/6010.html. So it is wrong to say about religion of Shapshal's adherents.They have no any one except may be Christianity of their current sponsors,

You are right that most of Karaylar DE-facto are not Karaim Jews,but they were not exist before European Karaites have started to speak Russian. "Karaylar","Crimean Karaim",or "Turkic Karaim" is there self name , some misleading name with the only purpose to distinguish themselves from other "Karaim"(Karaite Jews).The Kerait tribe have no any relations to Karaylar.Firkovich and Grigoriev heard nothing about them.Kaz's claiming that there are Qaraei Karaites is not supported by any RS (as usual).

Please see also " Известия Таврического и Одесского Караимского Духовного Правления — 1917. — № 5-6. — 1 ноября —" were Crimean Karaites define themselves as brothers of Egypt and Turkish Karaites defining themselves as Jews. So it was at 1917.

Possibly you do not like RS are in Russian ,but this a main language of Crimean Karaites at last 100 years Неполканов (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

May I also write a general apology here to everyone for the google book results I posted the other day. Each time I check back it seems google has a different answer (usually within a dozen). Do feel free to update the results if you find them inaccurate.Budo (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Неполканов I am surprised to see that you make reference to a theory relating the Keraits (керейлер) to the Karaylar. May I ask where you found reference to it? I should let you know that I personally have no objection to sources in any language (Russian or otherwise), except that I have great difficulty translating them myself. Please do share anything you know. Budo (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According neutral(non-Jewish and non-Karaylar and has no own POV regarding Karaylar origin) Crimean historian Andrey Malygin the theory about Keraits-Karaim connection was invented by Y.Polkanov without basing on any new RS. Even some Karaylar Turkic origin theory supporters (e.g М.Chafuz) do not accept this theory. See "Jews or Turks.New elements in Karaims and Krypchaks identity in modern Crimea" Неполканов (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have discovered that Yuri Polkanov is the appointed head of the World Association of Karaites. Why do you want to avoid his own point of view on this matter? Surely he knows the oral traditions of his pwn people better than anyone else no? It looks increasingly like his reports are quite widely published. Where does the hostile opposition to his reports on the culture of his ethnic group come from? Budo (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption that Polkanov knows Karaim tradition is problematic.As I wrote above Yuri Polkanov's father was ethnic Russian,Alexander Polkanov that was orthodox priest's son.Yuri Polkanov has Russian name and surname,and his articles are based on his father publication dated mainly by Holocaust time,issued under German Ocupation .The goal of these publications was to convenient the Nazis that Karaim are not Jews in order to save Alexander's Polkanov Karaim wife.Already then most of Karaims in Crimea did not speak Turkic language, especially in mixed families.Polkanov-father's publication were rejected by Soviet Historians. In spite of these , Polkanov-junior's publications(at least first one) are based on his ethnic Russian father's publications . Yuri Polkanov is famous world known,geologist. His scientific title used to present his publications,like he is historian scientist,that is misleading. According professional Crimean historian A. Malygin(the head of Crimean Staff Museum)(see above), Polkanov's rejection any Jewish/Semitic Elements is unprecedented and doubted even by Karaylar Turkic origin theory supporters.As I wrote above Polkanov's publications usually are not based on any sources,while there are a lot of RS contradicting his conclusions. Unfortunately modern Karaim(most of them are Russian speaking members of mixed families like Polkanov ) are influenced by Shapshal's and Polkanov's POV and ignoring other sources. Неполканов (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If we were writing an article on the EU, then the views of Frau Merkel and Mr Michaloliakos would be worth mentioning. But we would not write the whole article based on the views of one them. An appropriate thing might be to explain their views in a paragraph for Merkel and one or two sentences for Michaloliakos.

An article on the Crimean Karaites and their descendents might mention Polankov's views in a paragraph somewhere after a paragraph or two about Shapshal. Since Polankov claims to talk about history, it would be appropriate to mention criticism of his statements in that paragraph. There would need to be sources. How reliable those sources were, would depend on what they were being used for.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. It would have been nice if you could have backed up the opinions with some RS third party publications. Until then my question remains unanswered. Where does the hostile opposition to Polkanov's reports on the culture of his ethnic group come from? Or is such opposition just personal? Budo (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I have set up MiszaBot to autoarchive threads where the last comment is 90 days older or more. I hope nobody minds. I hope it works.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Crimean Karaites history "militarization" .

It is not clear to me why Galassi's twinkle reverted my last edits. I have approved and clarified the existing statement with RS from Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.In spite of that this edit was interpreted as OR.Please explain here before additional revert. 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs)

There is no reason to say this twice. The article already contains this passage.--Galassi (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no nothing about the militarization except this place.Please check your twinkle -I did not add any new passage -I only dated the modern tradition(as it was written in the original text -before my last edits.Неполканов (talk)

Kevin Alan Brook

Kevin Alan Brook novel "The Jews of Khazaria " is not reliable source for Wikipedia editing. K. A. Brook is a business administrator and a writer. As be lacks any formal education from history he is not credible source for Wikipedia on this issues.--Tritomex (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC) The idea that there is scientific "consensus" that the Khazars religion was "Talmudic Judaism" is a non sense and WP:OR. It has no base at any serious historic or academic source.--Tritomex (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources such as book reviews to back up your claims?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I really do not understand what I have to prove. K. A. Brook is a business administrator and although his biography is rarely covered in scientific journals I found it in numerus self published sites. Here is his CV [1] Concerning the so called Khazar Theory which was described by Bernard Lewis as "supported by no evidence" I suggest academic historians as Dunlop, Golden, Erdal, Orjol or Moshe Gil [2].--Tritomex (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you up to a point.

• I note that you have not provided any book reviews. This link provided extracts from some of them.
• This opinion column in the Jewish Post and this article that originally appeared in Israel Hayom explain why there are POV-pushers on the subject.
• Your statement that The Jews of Khazaria is a "novel" is not backed up by any reliable source. It is just your POV.
• The paper by Moshe Gil in Revue des études juives' July-December 2011 is interesting and useful. The paper states that "The Khazars have for a long time been considered to have converted to Judaism. ... this belief is devoid of any real historical value." (p429). The paper goes through fifteen Arab sources and one Byzantine source and examines whether they mention the Khazars being Jews, and if they did, comments on the sources of the authors' information. It shows (or appears to show) that the evidence for the Khazars being Jews is weak. Only five of fifteen the Arab sources mentioned either the Khazars or the Khazar king being Jewish. He says that it is "very significant" that neither Tabari nor Ibn al-Athir mention the Khazars being Jews.

Brook's The Jews of Khazaria was originally published in 1999, with a second revised and updated edition published in 2009. It was "a compendium of information gathered from every available source" (James Howard-Johnston, University Lecturer in Byzantine Studies, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 27:2, Winter 2009 issue.) Clearly Brook could not have taken account of Gil's 2011 paper.

In any case, the relevance of Brook to an article on the Crimean Karaites is that he says that the claim that the Crimean Karaites are descendents of the Khazar Jews is a myth. Gil's work does not refute that. I think the best thing to do is to revise the text that User:Tritomex deleted to take account of more recent work, but still making the central point clear that the view that the Crimean Karaites are the descendents of Jewish Khazars is a myth.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the claim that the Crimean Karaites are descendents of the Khazar Jews is a myth. However what I find problematic here and in other articles as well is a fact that an unreliable source was used for highly speculative and sensitive historic claim, even more it went further by categorically claiming the existence of consensus on issue which is highly debated in academic world. K.A. Brook book is sensationalist book, in many aspects in contradiction with academic views on subject- Also, as he lacks any academic expertise and formal education from this field, his claims are not reliable source for Wikipedia editing.--Tritomex (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

But you do not have book reviews to back up your claim that it "is sensationalist novel, in many aspects in contradiction with academic views on subject".--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have toned down your claims - replacing "novel" with "book". Thank you. Please read some book reviews.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The probable lack of any academic debate regarding his book comes from the same reason I have stated above. K. A. Brook is not an academic historian and has no expertise from this field. There are numerous academic historians covering this field, some of them I have mentioned. The views of academic historians on this question are almost unanimous, this is obvious if anyone read Lewis, Dunlop, Golden, Erdal, Ben Sasson etc. As in the case of other similar issues, I snuggest here to adhere to Wikipedia rules regarding WP:RS and to avoid literature and claims which do not come from historians and other academic experts from this field.--Tritomex (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex also wrote some of these distortions about me on the Talk:Khazars page. The reality is I had academic training in Russian history and Russian political history in two semester-long courses at Bryant College. Also, my research is not a fictional "novel" nor is it "in many aspects in contradiction with academic views on subject" as he claims, and my written works are frequently cited in academic books and articles (some examples are in getcited.org's database). In fact, Tritomex's pet theorist Moshe Gil has an outlier view about Khazar Judaism being supposedly a myth that is different from what Dunlop and Golden claims. (He uses Dunlop and Golden as examples of good sources and so do I.) I have years of expertise on the Crimean Karaites and personally led the project to explore their genetic background. The new results are posted to http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/karaites.html and I have an invitation to publish them in a peer-reviewed academic journal. This is an expansion from what I wrote in my book. As this is a scientific study using Y-DNA and mtDNA and I am the only source for this study, I must be cited for it regarding the debate on Crimean Karaite origins. Tritomex has no right to unilaterally remove valid data pertinent to this question. Against what he claimed in his 13 April 2013, the academic consensus that I quote in my book is in fact that the Khazars were Rabbinites not Karaites. On the other hand, Gábor Vékony's assertion that the Alsószentmihály Rovas refers to a Khazar Karaite is not cited by Golden or any other reputable historian on Khazar Judaism. - Kevin Brook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.27.64 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites before 1790?

I don't think this article stays on topic. The Crimean Karaites are Karaite Jews who began to distinguish themselves from their Jewish past for the first time during the Russian Empire in order to escape discriminatory laws. OK fine, so then why go on about the Khazars? That is an idea they stole from the Krymchaks. Furthermore there is no genetic relationship between Crimean Karaites and the sect of Ananite Lithuanian Tatars who call themselves Karaylar. Even their languages are significantly different. Crimean Karaim is a dialect of Krymchak, and Lithuanian Karaim is a dialect of Lithuanian Tatar. Of course the Crimean Karaites (thanks to the influence of Count Nikolay Zubov) managed to gain control over the Lithuanian Karaylar. Apart from the Lithuanian Karaite Legend there is not even any proof that there were any Karaylar in Crimea before 1790. Suddenly Russia takes over and suddenly the Crimean Karaites appear saying that they are different from other Karaite Jews in the Ottoman Empire and saying they are related to the Lithuanian Karaylar. I would like to challenge the authors of this article to produce any indisputable evidence of the existence of Crimean Karaites prior to the 1790s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.117.245 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First written evidence about Crimean Karaites is from Johann Schiltberger's Caffa description ( XV century) see his "The bondage and travels of Johann Schiltberger, a native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427",cited in "A. Harkavy, Altjudische Denkmaler aus der Krim, mitgetheilt von Abraham Firkowitsch, SPb., 1876 "and many Russian sources.

You mislead the important point that Ananite Lithuanian Tatars claim their Crimean origin.So they also considered in English as Crimean Karaites . They have no language of spoken Polish Lithuanin Tatars but the language similar to Volin and Halicia Karaims language spoken by Avraham Firkovich. The last one migrated to Crimea at 19 century and became the leader of Karaites in Crimea. So the claiming that Crimean Karaites gained control over the Lithuanian Karaylar is poblematic .The ABO test actually finds difference between Karaites in Crimea and Lithuania,but also find similarity between Lithuanian and Egypt Karaites(Fried, K., Landau, J., Cohen, T., and Goldschmidt, E. (1968). Some genetic polymorphic characters of the Karaite community. Harefuiah, 75, 507-509.). Tatars in Egypt ? Was Isaac of Troki Tatar ? I have searched for expression Ananite Lithuanian Tatars in the web and did not find anything -what is your source of this claim ?

Also claim that Krymchaks (self name Srel balalary - literally "Children of Israel )had belief in descent from the Khazars is unreferenced and contradicts the article about Krymchaks and need to be removed. Actually the belief of Khazars origin was adopted by some Krymchaks only in XX century due to Karaim Influence.Неполканов (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-Write

The article needs a complete re-write. The lead in itself is very problematic. No references. Since the talk and edit histories expose a great deal of politics concerning this article (which is now polluting the internet whenever one searches for info on Crimean Karaites, so now I'm here) I suggest it be stripped down to bare bones and not a single line be inserted without reference to the source of the opinion. For the lead something based around the following from ;Tiryaki, Victor & Mireyev, Vadim (2006) Complex of Karaite Kenassas in Eupatoria and Other Kenassas Around the World[3]:

"Crimean Karaites are one of the smallest Turkic nations in the world. In these days only several Hundreds of them still live in Crimea, their historical homeland, and there are about 1100 Karaite people in Ukraine in the whole." (p.2)

"Up to the end of the 18th century, Juft-Qale was the largest administrative, cultural, and religious center of the Crimean Karaites." (p.4)

"Loss of native language gives little chance for the ethnic future of the Crimean Karaites as a genuine nation. However, even now the center of spiritual ans cultural life of the Crimean Karaites remains a complex of Kenassas in Eupatoria." (p.5)

Please do join in with suggestions. F.Tromble (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What is problematic in the lead for your opinion? According the lead, Karaim(like Tiryaki) define themselves originally centered in Crimea; and derived from Turkic-speaking Karaites. As you may see your cite renews nothing, but it is possible to add it as additional reference. Why do you want to rewrite completely?

By the way the common opinion that the native language and culture is best preserved not in Eupatoria but in Trakai that mentioned in the article about Crimean Karaites and Karaim language What would you like to add. ? Неполканов (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Could you be more specific?" Yes, there is not a single reference mentioning "Crimean Karaites". And who is "Tiryaki"? Could you provide an English language reference please? Also the grammar is terrible throughout the article. It clearly has not been written by a native English speaker. I see you are the principle editor for the past year or so. Your contributions are welcome but there is much about wiki style you could learn. Finally, I am sorry, in your last question above your English grammar is not very easily comprehensible so I can not answer it. I gather you are trying to make some point about common opinion and Trakai and Crimean Karaites, but again I think it would really help if you could bring an English language reference to illustrate what you are trying to say. Let's go from there. F.Tromble (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the "Crimean Karaites" name mislead you. You are not the first. The intention is to Karaims including the Lithuanian Karaims -see the lead. I did not choose the article name.It is the misleading but common name in English for this ethnic group as decided in this talk(see archived versions), due to the reasons explained in the article lead. There are 46 references in this article including many English sources-e.g Tatiana Schegoleva. Karaites of Crimea: History and Present-Day Situation in Community

Tiryaki was cited by you not by me and he is a leader of Eupatorian Karaims see the russian wikipedia article.

My English realy is far from to be perfect. But 99% sources about the Karaims are not in English. Actually the modern Karaims Mother language is not Karaims but Russian- even in Trakai. So the understanding of Russian language for this article contributions is as important as English. You invited to use automatic tools, to ask questions and I will try to find a proper English source when it possible. And of course, the improvement of the article language is very very important and I really need help here. Your conribution is very invited.Неполканов (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If the article name is misleading, then it needs to e re-named even if it is common, there are rules about misleading names on Wikipedia. If it is about Karaims in general rather than Crimean Karaims specifically then it should be re-named simply as Karaims. Or you should start a second article about Karaims and if you can prove that Crimean Karaites are indeed a branch of Karaims rather than Karaite Jews, then you can have this article merged into a section on the new article (but be prepared that it might better be merged into an article about Karaite Jews in general rather than an article about your "Karaims". Are Crimean Karaites really notable enough to deserve such a long article of their own? These are all important Questions which need to be considered in order to get this article ship-shape. Either way, without the proper name in the first instance, writing an appropriately referenced intro would be problematic. Whatever sources are used for the intro must use the same name that the article uses. But I see there is a lock on the page so it can not be re-named "Karaims", therefore the intro must be about Crimean Karaites and not Karaims in general. Unless you would like to approach an administrator to unlock the page? As it stands right now though, you are telling me that the article you are writing is about a slightly broader topic than the name implies, and this is not the way things should be on wikipedia or in any encyclopaedic entry. However the fact the page has been locked indicates that there has been some controversy about the name and your opinion seems to have been on the losing side. Thank you for the very important info about Tiryaki, unfortunately Wikipedia can not be used as a source. It would be good to find something in English about him if you can as he would deserve a mention in the article. It is important to use as many English sources as possible on English wiki and restrict the number of foreign language sources. This is because not many people can read other languages and can not verify the sources for themselves and it can lead to edit wars. I would like to contribute to the article, but it would need to be completely re-written and is in a totally different style. My style would be to put references in every paragraph. And if the article is called Crimean Karaites, then these references must be restricted specifically to be about Crimean Karaites. What would you like to move things forward do now? Start a new petition to rename the page (you might lose again)? Or trim it down? F.Tromble (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To prevent mislead I suggest you to learn the subject/to read the article. You can read there that their origin is a matter of great controversy. The wikipedia is not a place to prove controversaries, but to present all opinions. Karaims is also problematic name.Please look at its article to learn the issue. Russian word "Karaim" means "Karaite"(as in Hebrew). Claiming for their Crimean origin and in order to distance themselves from being identified as Karaite Jews,they call themselves караимы-тюрки,or крымские караимы(Karaite Turks or Crimean Karaites). While first name claiming their Turks origin does not reflect the other POVs, it was decided after long debates to use the second name. The lead explains the matter to minimize mislead. Неполканов (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Karaites-Karaylar in Turkey

What about karaites in Turkey? there is almost nothing about them about their history and living places,for example like araköy [4] --88.255.183.34 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)