|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Local and Global Leadership
- 2 Reduction of See Also and External Links sections
- 3 A revision of Karaite history from a fresh partisan/sectarian perspective
- 4 how many Karaites in Istanbul?
- 5 Messianic Missionary Evangelisation?
- 6 This territory is off for lies and forgeries
- 7 Unsourced Unreferenced POV Original Research
- 8 External links issues, again
- 9 50 thousand??!
- 10 rabbinic beliefs exalted over Torah?
Local and Global Leadership
I would like to suggest the addition of a section explaining the leadership aspect within KJ. Many people who have heard of KJ, but don't know much about it, assume that KJ has rabbis like Rabbinic Judaism. However, in KJ, a ḥaḵam fills some of the role in KJ that rabbis fill in RJ (although, how that is executed in each is a little different, which could be explained). Also, the role of the ḥazzan could also be elaborated. Both of these can be explained without too much detail as there are dedicated articles for both ḥaḵamîm and ḥazzanîm which give a wider picture to their roles. At this point, it might be a good place to mention the most significant differences between a rabbinic and a karaite bêt kĕnesset (lack of benches/chairs, who's in charge, et cætera).
On a more global level, there is the Moˁeṣet HaḤaḵamîm ("Council of Sages"), World Karaite Movement, and Karaite Jewish University which have an influence on the global Karaite community. The last of which (KJU), may be the only real inroute for non-Jews to officially convert to KJ outside of Israel (at least, in the eyes of the state of Israel). Who does the global community look to as an authority for the sighting of the New Crescent Moon (for marking the new months and new years) in The Land? Also, it could be explained to readers that there is no Jewish version of the Pope.
It seems there is enough material to fill out a decent section. What prompted me to think about this was the use of the title Ḥaḵam through the article, but (as far as I have noticed) no explanation (nor wikilink) for the lay reader. Placement of the section as early as possible in the article would be helpful (the history section, Russian subsection uses the term "ḥaḵam"), but may not be best placed before the history section (maybe immediately after, just before the beliefs section).
- Your idea sounds OK to me, al-Shimoni. If you want to write it, I would say go ahead. I can try to help revise it after it is added. If we just link the first occurrence of Hakham in the article as it is, the section would not have to be too long, it seems to me? Regards, warshytalk 13:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Reduction of See Also and External Links sections
Both of these sections were already template tagged as violating WP guidelines concerning the See Also and External Links sections. The External Links section was particularly bad as it contained many blogs, minor sites in non-English, dead websites, websites not even related to the topic, etc. The See Also section had so many entries that it was subsectioned into various categories (admittedly, I was the one who organized it into sections a long time ago because it was a long mess). Many of the topics see-alsoed were already wikilinked in the body of the article. The only remaining hint of sectioning is three people who are secondary bulleted under the List of Karaite Jews bullet.
Although not perfect, these two sections now better comply to WP's guidelines. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are some pictures from the heritage of the Turkish Karaite jewish community at this link. I know very little about WP copyright handling, so leave the source for whoever would be interested in adding pics to the article. --E4024 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
A revision of Karaite history from a fresh partisan/sectarian perspective
For editors here interested in, and who focus on Karaite history more specifically, an entire revision of it is being undertaken in Wikipedia right now by an avowed priest of a supposed "Islamic Mosaist" sect. For those interested, the hub/nub of this new attemtp to completely rewrite Karaite history from a purely Islamic perspective is here. warshytalk 18:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Karaite Jewish sages like (Jeshua ben Judah and Jacob ben Reuben of Byzanteum) have always done their best to make sure the Khazar converts (Karaimlar) should never be confused with real Karaite Jews. It is bad enough that sites like this one http://karaism.org/ think all Karaites are Khazar Karaims isn't it? Why do you want to keep the distinction blurred? So that you can claim to be a Karaite Jew while being uncircumcised and believing in Jesus and Muhammad at the same time? Karaims and genuine Karaite Jews are very clearly distinct. Read John Kinnamos. Kaz 17:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Corrected wikilink above.) --E4024 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Kaz 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Kaz, For what it's worth, it looks like the website at karaism.org is, thankfully, no more. Someone seems to have snatched it from the previous owner and put something more appropriate in its place. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Corrected wikilink above.) --E4024 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
how many Karaites in Istanbul?
Messianic Missionary Evangelisation?
It seems to me that certain users are attempting to evangelise by regurgitating an oft-repeated mistranslation of the Russian word Evrei as Jews (Iudei) rather than Hebrews. Using this mantle, these missionaries are able to insert passages into articles like this one to convince the Karaite Jewish audience that the Karaims of Eastern Europe (Crimea, Russia etc.) were once Karaite Jews, rather than Karai-Tatars (meaning black tatars) Tengri worshippers who were converted to an early form of Unitarianism and who have been confused with Jews ever since. The intention obviously being to encourage Karaites Jews to read the works of Jesus and Muhammad and discover "Messianic Karaite Judaism". Warshy seems particularly interested in hiding the Karai-Tatar truth and pushing the Evrei = Jewish POV. But he is certainly not alone. The truth about the Karaims of Eastern Europe is that there was only a question on their identity after Catherine the Creat partitioned the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and invaded Crimea. At this point the Karaims first came to the attention of the Russian authorities. While the Karaims had enjoyed officer-rank privileges under the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Russians were not sure at first how to apply the anti-Jewish legislation inherited from the Commonwealth, and the question of whether Karaims were meant to be included under the legislation arose. Within two years, Benjamin Aga had explained the history of the Karaims to Tzarina Catherine the Great, and the Officer-privileges for Karaims were enshrined in Russian law and not long after that the Imperial Russian Orthodox Church granted the Church of the Karaims official status with two diocese putting them on an equal status with Islam in the Empire. However, the Wiki-Missionaries present quite a different POV throughout all the wiki articles, that except for their Tatar identity the views of the Karaims of Eastern Europe may have had a legitimate place amidst the Karaite Jews. They present the Karaims' "Khazar" identity (which has always been well-accepted in Russian academic circles e.g. ) as a late 19th century fabrication apparently in the hopes that young Karaite Jews will find the references to "Christ and Muhammad" prior to these dates and consider that there might be some room for the teachings of Jesus within Karaite Judaism from a Unitarian stance.
Thus it seems to me that the Russian and Crimean and Lithuanian sections of the article need to be reduced significantly to reflect the historical facts rather than a mixture of Missionary POV pushing and prejudicial fantasy. It seems it would be sufficient to have a section saying something like:
- Possible Karaite Jewish origins of the Karaims
- It has been suggested by X, Y, and Z that the Karaims of Eastern Europe (Crimea, Lithuania, Russia, etc.) may have originated with Karaite Jewish migrants in the Xth century. However, Karaims were not included under anti-Jewish legislation while they lived under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a position which Catherine the Great also adopted towards them after they were incorporated into her Empire. Whatever the truth about their origin may be, the majority of East European Karaims themselves regard themselves as Karai-Tatar in origin related to the Keraits rather than Karaites. The religion of the East European Karaims is syncretic in character incorporating some ideas from both Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism, as well as Christian, Islamic and pagan elements. For more information see Karaims (ethnic group).
It does not seem to me that there is a need to go into any more detail than that. Wikipedia should not be used as a podium to evangelise Jews by spreading misinformation from non-peer reviewed sources. Any thoughts from users other than those involved in promoting the confusion? Kaz 08:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC) May I just add that the 16:04, 2 October 2012 edit is my edit, I just forgot to log in. 16:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This territory is off for lies and forgeries
Here the story is still recorded with all the elements it needs to be judged correctly in an impartial historical perspective. Here you are not going to be allowed to continue this campaign of historical falsifications, lies, and forgeries. You have established somewhere else, for the time being, that your fringe sect does not belong to Karaism. Your concerted campaing of religious lies and falsifications do not belong in Wikipedia at all, and they will be eventually purged. But here you beware. Nothing here is going to be changed without proper discussion first. No one reacted to your previous posts here, but now you have crossed all lines. warshytalk 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced Unreferenced POV Original Research
- Nice Straw man Ad hominem attack there Mr Missionary. Tell me which of the requests for citation which you are trying to remove is a forgery of lies? How is my removal of dead links from your self-published website (which you are trying to re-insert) a campaign of historical falsifications? Kaz 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You are a boldface liar. You are changing stable (not good by any means, but definitely stable and a very good basis for true historical inquiry) content and replacing it with lies and forgeries, without citing any reliable sources. The lies and forgeries that you have so far fed the English WP in the page that refers to your fringe, non-notable religious-ethnic sect, making a big thing out of a couple hundred people allegedly belonging to some kind of invented, impossible, oxymoronic "Islamic Mosaism" are up for exposure. You lie through your teeth saying the complete content change you made twice are a request for sources. And you reverted it twice already saying you are "not" starting an edit war. You have crossed all lines now and I am reporting you to the appropriate forums. warshytalk 18:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
We will see who exactly is a bold-faced liar. Wikipedia is not a place to post Unsourced Unreferenced POV Original Research to be as you put it "a very good basis for true historical inquiry". You continue to build your Straw man Ad hominem, but I repeat my questions:
"Tell me which of the requests for citation which you are trying to remove is a forgery of lies? How is my removal of dead links from your self-published website (which you are trying to re-insert) a campaign of historical falsifications? Kaz 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)"
Kaz 19:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Issue of EL has come up again in recent edits. I have reduced the ELs down, again, to make them further in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines on External Links.
In truth, all the current links violate the Wikipedia guidelines, although the Faith Strengthened link is probably to closest to being in full compliance. I have kept that link as well as the organization links even though the organization links fail EL guidelines. There is an exception that could have applied to the organization links which would have made them pass the guidelines (ie, being an official website of the topic), however, this exception is only applicable if it is the official website of the topic mentioned (ie, the website of the one-and-only governing body of the topic, or the person who is the topic). Since Karaite Judaism is not a cult, and does not have an official body dictating what to believe and who is a member (such as the Catholic Church, The Latter-Day Saints church, or the Church of Scientology), Karaite Judaism does not have an "Official Site". The organization EL are the next best thing, but that is not a loophole in the WP guidelines (so, basically, I'm ignoring strict compliance with the guidelines, here). Most of the links that were removed fall into what WP considers the "personal website" category, although they also violated other criteria.
The UKJ website would also be frowned upon by the guidelines because it is primarily (overwhelmingly) in Hebrew. I have added the Hebrew link icon, as guided by the WP guidelines, and changed the link destination to point to the one main page that is in English on the website (it is basically an English homepage for the site, although the rest of the site is in Hebrew). However, if the UKJ website changes its content management system, that link may become a 404, and will need to be updated.
A non-WP comment (although, could be WP-related indirectly) to Melech b.Y, if you are reading this, I would suggest that the WAK buy a domain name — using a Google Sites address does not help the WAK in looking "official" on the web (domains are only 10 $/year from GoDaddy, I would even be willing to host the WAK's site on my servers if Google doesn't provide DNS/domain-pointing to their Sites customers pages). Also, the WAK site may violate bias guidelines for external links (ie, the repeated strongly-worded monologues against UKJ, WKM, and KJU; although, this is an subjective assessment). Also, apologies for cutting your KI site's external link.
— al-Shimoni (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions that there are about 50 thousand karaites around today but only gives one source. Is this enough for such an important bit of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that would depend on whether or not there is a credible reason to believe that the source is wrong. Do you have a source that is as good or better that gives a different number? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well actually if you look at this article by the author of a book on the subject http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Ancient_and_Medieval_History/632-1650/Islamic_World/Karaites.shtml then it seems that someone with some authority says that there are only around 7 thousand. Also if you look at their own website http://www.karaite-korner.org/fact_sheet.shtml you can see that they say they have 25 thousand in Israel and only another 5 thousand in other countries.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If nobody has a problem with it I want to change the wording at the end of the 1st section to say that today "estimates are between 25 thousand to as many as 50 thousand" with the sources?--126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable change to me, and you don't have to ask permission. Go for it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
rabbinic beliefs exalted over Torah?
"...in the view of Karaites, many traditions and customs are kept that are in contradiction with those expressed in the Torah," in reference to the Talmud and the writings of the Rabbis. No citation or example is given. An example would be helpful. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- In case of contradiction, the written law takes precedence over the oral law. See, for example, Eduyot 4:11; also, secondary sources: , . Anecdotally, I've heard a Chasid saying that mitzvot derabanan are to be taken as more authoritative because the Talmud is more strict (or "chamur" חָמוּר); that confusion of his must have arisen from the Rabbinic ruling on cases of doubt (or "safek" סָפֵק). Someone else, particularly a Karaite, may disagree, and I would be happy to read the alternative view. Cheers! 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promising Justice: Derrida with Jewish Jurisprudence A Hirvonen - Law and Critique, 2001 - Springer "Thus, those commandments (mitzvot) that come directly from the Torah (de'oraita) and are biblical, are a superior authority to those rabbinic ones which do not come from it (de'rabbanan). The de'oraita ... "