Talk:Subbotniks

Seventh-Day Adventist church

The first adventists in Russia were Germans. I read that the subbotniks helped them (mission). Is that right?

"Russian rationalistic bodies"

In what sense are the Subbotniks rationalistic? They are religious believers who accept the Old Testament and various aspects of Jewish law and ritual. Rationalism is normally associated with religious sceptism or at least a rarified, deistic view of religion. Perhaps the associations of the word are different in Russian.

In any case, someone should either provide context for this usage or delete it. The hyperlink to the Rationalism article should certainly go, since its definitions of rationalism have no connection with anything that could characterise the Subbotniks.66.183.165.57 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are rationalistic with regards to their reading of the Torah which means they follow more closely the Karaites.82.6.24.231 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Subbotniks.jpg

Image:Subbotniks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical Origins, Evidence of Their Relationship to Jews Beyond Ideology

The article does not mention whether the Subbotniks were originally Christians who adopted Jewish ritual and belief, or Jews who combined Christian elements in their practice. If that is a disputed matter among historians, then that should be exposed. There is no mention as of when or where they originated, how big a group they are, and what ever happen to them in present time. Are there any famous Subbotniks? Have they converted to either Judaism or Christianity?

I remember hearing that the old synagogue in Birobidzhan, a log cabin, was actually a Subbotnik church. Any information on that?

Rafael Eitan's biography in Wikipedia mentions that he was born from Subbotnik parents. Does that mean he wasn't really Jewish?

It would be great if someone competent enough to answer these questions came to Wikipedia and presented his reply.--rafvrab (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Subbotniks were originally Orthodox Russians who adopted Jewish ritual and belief. There is no dispute about it. Olegwiki (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Did they simply declared themselves to be Jews or was their conversion overseen by a rabbi? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Subbotniki do not claim to be Jews. They simply believe that Judaism is true and have adopted certain Jewish practices accordingly.Mikedelsol (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The former archbishop Romantzov

I'm curious: was he a RO archbishop who converted, or did the Subbotniks have archbishops? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

New Lead

Any comments on the new lead please? Is it acceptable? YuHuw (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Karaimites

188.29.165.135 added the term "Karaimites" to the lead as an alternative name for the Subbotnik Karaites. I don't see where a consensus for having that name was established. More relevantly, I don't see that "Karaimites" (or "Karaimits" or "Karaimiti") is ever used in reliable English-language sources; those without exception use terms such as "Karaite Subbotniks", sometimes shortened to just "Karaites". We should not be making up our own terms; that's a kind of original research. Huon (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, agree. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Huon, I also agree that we should not be making up our own terms. Karaimits was the consensus since 2016 but Google translated the Russian term Karaimiti as Karaimites see for example [1] and there are plenty of references to Karaimites in English. Hence I changed it. Notice how Google translated the term Karaimi in the same article as Karaites. Clearly Karaimi/Karaites and Karaimiti/Karaimites are distinct although very similar. The distinction seems to be that one (Karaimi) is a sect of Jews while the other (Karaimiti) is a sect of uncircumcised Russian gentiles. User:Toddy1 the additional references which you removed come from Nehemiah Gordon's page on non Jewish Russian Karaites [2]. Do you know who Nehemiah Gordon's is? I am quite sure that Jewish Karaites do not believe in Jesus and Muhammad do they? Who claims that? And don't worry, I am not a banned user. If the banned user you mentioned is Nehemiah Gordon I apologize for bringing the quotes from his page. Nevertheless, they are valid references and should be included somewhere on Wikipefia. If not here then whdiffeere? 188.29.164.231 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that the term was ever discussed; having been for a long time in an article with a very low volume of edits doesn't in itself make a consensus. If there are plenty of references to Karaimites in English, you're welcome to provide some so we can add them to the article. Google Translate is not a reliable source, though. If there's a source distinguishing between "Karaite Subbotniks" and "Karaimites" or between "Karaite Subbotniks" and "Karaites", you're welcome to present that, too. Nehemiah Gordon mentions Subbotniks, but never talks of Karaite Subbotniks (nor of "Karaimites") but of Crimean Karaites (also known as Qaraylar), so that source isn't relevant for this article (it provides next to no information about Subbotniks, and that little only in the form of a quote from another source). Huon (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Huon, it looks like things were not so peaceful between the editors in 2016. It might have been best to let sleeping dogs lie. Anyway here we are.

Let's look at the links I provided. You can see the difference between Karaites/Karaimi and Karaimites/Karaimiti is made clearly in this book entry [3] about Russian sects. Can you find a link where it clearly says that Karaimiti and Karaimi are the same?

Nehemiah tries to use Green to say that Crimean Karaites are not Jews. But the quotes he uses do not use the term Crimean Karaites at all. Green uses the term Russian Karaism and makes the point about belief in Jesus and Muhammad. It might be helpful to get an expert opinion from Gershom Qiprisci or Nissim Valko on whether Crimean Karaites believe in Jesus and Muhammad or not but I suspect (since they are Jews) not. It seems Nehemiah might be equating Crimean Karaites with Subbotnik beliefs of the Russian Karaites. We could invite Nehemiah to clarify why he equates the two as KaraylarKaraites. But that would be inviting original research (unless he can provide a source). Simply going by the sources without interpreting them, Russian Karaites are a type of Judaizers from Christianity. They are also called Karaite Subbotniks and Karaimiti(Karaimites) to distinguish them from regular Karaites. Tell me what you think. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What Crimean Karaites believe might be relevant for the article on Crimean Karaites but not for this one. The website you present is in Russian and thus does not use the term "Karaimites" in Latin script. Where are the English sources you said use "Karaimites"? Huon (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Hi User:Huon, Which source do you say is about Crimean Karaites? Back to this topic the word Karaimites does exist in English. Here are some mentions of "Karaimites" in google books "karaimites"&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWhd3itZjZAhWOe8AKHUFNAOIQ_AUIDygG&biw=320&bih=488. 08:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk • contribs)

@Huon:Sorry I can't get the link to display properly. Just Google "Karaimites" in books to see the results. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: The James Hastings "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" is a good English parallel of the Russian publications. [4]. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: I see the Encyclopedia also uses the term Karaitizers.188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, User Huon is correct from beginning to end. And User Toddy1 is right that banned User Kaz is back. It is time to ban this sockpuppet again. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I googled not just "Karaimites" but the combination of "Karaimites" and "Subbotniks". Few results, to put it mildly. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, unlike many other sources, actually does seem to refer to Subbotniks (though not by name); however, the excerpt Google Books shows is too short to be sure about that or to draw any other meaningful conclusions on who exactly the Karaimites are, whether the Karaites are another branch of Subbotniks or some other group, or much else. The Encyclopedia is also old, being a 1951 reprint of a work first published in 1908 or so, and unlikely to still be the state of scholarship. Huon (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly Karaites have nothing to do with the issue. The entry is old but since no new scholarship on the subject exists then it has not been surpassed. That is the state of things until someone else writes a new scholarly article in the Karaimites which the entry is very clear were Karaitizers and uncircumcised but NOT Karaites. You were frankly wrong to remove it from the article when you don't know the difference between a Subbotnik-Karaimite and a Karaite. (But don't fret, I'm sure you are not the only one lol ;) ) Do you still demand that the word is not restored to the article? Or are you not that fussed about it anymore? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Karaites? Published sources disagree with you: "many of the same divisions that split Jews apart came also to fracture the Subbotniks. For instance, among Subbotniks there was also a divide between Talmudists and Karaites." I did not add anything about Subbotnik-Karaites being "regular" Karaites to the page, so I don't know how my knowledge regarding their differences, or lack thereof, is relevant. As I said before, if you know of reliable sources that distinguish between Karaite Subbotniks and Karaites, you're welcome to add them to the article. I don't think the snippet view of the Encyclopedia is good enough, though. Huon (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding what must be the only sentence in Google books which seems to say that Karaites were Subbotniks. Sadly the footnote on that sentence does not help you. The source you provided would be better for you to use on the Karaite disambiguation talk page as an argument that the word Karaite can also refer to Subbotniks. But this discussion is not about the ambiguity you are promoting on the word Karaite. It is not relevant to the Subbotniks entry. Let's get Beck to the point in hand which is our discussion on your removal of the word Karaimite on the grounds that it is a made up English translation of the Russian word Karaimit.

The word Karaimite is the correct English Encyclopedic spelling of the Russian word Karaimit. There is no modern academic work on the word Karaimite which changes this fact. Do you still disagree? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"The only sentence in Google books which seems to say that Karaites were Subbotniks"? That's clearly not what the sentence says, and neither our article nor I say so. Both that source and our article say that some Subbotniks were Karaites. Just as there are some non-Subbotnik Jews who are Karaites and some who are not, the same holds for Subbotniks.

Regarding "Karaimites", firstly that wasn't what I removed, and secondly, it's still not a common English name for that group. For example, Google Scholar finds all of four uses, and of those I'm pretty sure three don't refer to Subbotniks (I have no idea what the fourth may be, but it's more than a century old). So, congratulations on finding what must be the only source on Google Books that refers to Karaite Subbotniks as "Karaimites", but that doesn't mean we need to mention every alternative name that's used once somewhere in the literature. Huon (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect Huon, you are side stepping the issue quite beautifully with impressive art if intentional. If you are using the word Karaite as an adjective not a noun then yes some Subbotniks are "Karaite" (adjective) but they are not (have not been and never will be) Karaites (plural noun) because until the last few decades Karaites do not accept converts. Circumcised Karaite Jews and Uncircumcised Karaimite "Jews' (Marian Feldman's book does not consider them Jews neither does "Reforming the Tsar's Army" which only mentions them once in footnote 33 on page 44) are very clearly two very different things. With very few exceptions they even lived in quite different locations. (For example, in Crimea they are mentioned only in the south of Simferopol by Juliane Furst) As the Encyclopedia says, they are only Karaitizers. The Encyclopedia is a classic which has been republished many times. They are discussed in Volume 7 under the entry "Judaizers". In the index in volume 13 it makes it very clear that Karaimites and Karaites (noun) are two separate entities. Looking through the history, non of the editors have ever tried to argue they are the same. All references to Karaimites on Google scholar use the word in its correct Encyclopedic meaning i.e. Karaitized Subbotniks. The facts of this matter are are still very simple:

1 Karaimiti is the Russian word used in the quoted Russian sources which deal with Karaite-Subbotniks.

2 The correct Encyclopedic translation of the Russian word Karaimiti is Karaimite. It may be from 100 years ago but it is a classic which has been republished many times since and no scholastic work has replaced that yet.

3 you removed the English translation of the Russian word Karaimiti from the article claiming I believe in good faith that it was invented.

4 Encyclopedic evidence was brought to illustrate your error.

I believe the steps for wiki etiquette have been followed. You disturbed [5] the status quo, (the edit history shows that this information began to come into the article with this edit [6] which links to this consensus discussion [7]) your edit was reversed[8]. I corrected the spelling in good faith[9]. You brought it to talk[10] then restored your disputed edit [11] before I could respond. I engaged with you in good faith. I brought you the evidence (from a classic Encyclopedia republished several times) which you said was missing. You want to dismiss the evidence. If you will still do not want to undo your removal I think it is time for 3O do you agree? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I indeed do not want to undo my removal to re-add a name that is not commonly used in English-language sources, particularly since I get the impression that this rarely-used name is meant here to push a certain POV about who is and who isn't a Karaite. Also, no, the Google Scholar hits don't all speak of Subbotniks. From Warsaw, Through Łuck, Siberia, and Back to Warsaw describes "Karaimites" as follows: "The Karaimites used the Hebrew alphabet and their Karaimite language belonged to the Kipchak group of Turkic languages." The JPRS Report seems to use "Karaimite" (p. 21) and "Karaite" (p. 23) interchangeably, and unless you can explain why Subbotniks should have a religious union in Poland, I doubt it's about them. Similarly, there's no indication in Reforming the Tsar's Army that we're dealing with Subbotniks and not Crimean Karaites. This seems to be more about a forced distinction beween Subbotnik Karaites and "true" Karaites not supported by the sources than about providing a commonly used alternative name. Huon (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are only two mentions on Google scholar about Karaimites. Both of them make a clear distinction between Karaimites and Jews. Meanwhile Karaites which includes Crimean Karaites are Jews. You have a lot of original research on your plate if you are going to try and push your Synthesis POV that Karaimites and Crimean Karaite Jews are one and the same. Get your research published in a peer reviewed journals and then we can talk about including your lumping ideas here. Meanwhile the published sources are clear. Uncircumcised Karaimite Subbotniks and Circumcises Karaite Jews were distinct. You must not attempt to rewrite history. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it is not a secondary source. That means it is not our job to synthesize nor interpret sources. It is only our duty to report. Without interpretation the facts are clear. Karaimites are defined as district from Karaites in a very well respected classic Encyclopedia which clearly parallels the Russian information about Karaimiti. Two other English sources in Google scholar can no be understood as suddenly referring to a different entity just because it seems like that to you. There has already been a concensus discussion about this in the links I posted. The standard wiki policy is to return to that concensus if we can not make progress. I am very sorry to say you are simply wrong this time because you are placing undue weight on more ambiguous content WP:RSUW rather than on the Encyclopedic entry. There is no evidence from the source you point to that the Karaimite religious Union was anything other than a Church under the rules of the second republic. More importantly it makes no attempt to equate it with the Karaite Religious Union listed in 1991. The idea that they all used Hebrew is not there. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." No hard feelings. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

None of this addresses the main issue at hand: Is "Karaimites" a commonly used alternative name for Karaite Subbotniks? The answer is no; there is a grand total of zero reliable English-language sources using both the terms "Karaimites" and "Subbotniks". There is one source using "Karaimites" in a Subbotnik context (without using the term), and there are more sources using "Karaimites" to refer to the Crimean Karaites. Finally there's a bunch of sources like the Polish one or the Russian Army one where context is unclear.

Regarding the "consensus discussion", the consensus was to not engage in original research by inventing our own terms. Some of the people involved in that discussion agreed with me above. I don't see anybody agreeing with you.

Regarding the "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" quote, that's exactly what I'm saying: The lone source using "Karaimites" to refer to Subbotniks doesn't mean we have to follow suit when it's uncommon both in how the Karaite Subbotniks are usually referred to and who "Karaimites" usually refers to. Huon (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you have lost sight of the main issue. It is about your removal of the word Karaimites as the correct English translation of the Russian word Karaimiti. You did so because you said it is a made up word. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to argue it is a lone source without adding a personal interpretation to other less weighty sources. Not one source uses the term Karaimites to refer to Crimean Karaites. That is just a personal interpretation. Without adding such interpretation all the sources are clearly about Karaimites as is. It is not our job to interpret. It is our job to report. If an academic does not like what we report then they can publish a new interpretation in a peer reviewed journals and we can report that too. Until then, we simply can not imply that Karaimites are a branch of Karaite Jews who originated in Crimea. Even if someone wrote that then it would have to be a pretty heavy source to outweigh the Encyclopedic entry we have. No reliable source says that.

I don't see anyone from that concensus discussion (which was about merging an obsolete "Qaraimist" article into this Subbotniks article) agreeing with you here. I on the other hand also agreed with your original premise that we should not include made up words. I also agreed with your deletion of Nehemiah Gordon's article. And I am sure I will agree with many other things you do in future as I can see you are a conscientious editor. But you were shown that "Karaimites" is not a made up word and I don't see anyone agreeing with your current line. Even if o e did then you still have nothing like enough support to overthrow the concensus. You tried, you were reverted. We are not making progress. The controversy will force the article back to its condition before your controversial edit. That is how Wikipedia works.

Also you have misunderstood weight. A lone but clear classic Encyclopedic entry has more weight than a few ambiguous usages which can be subject to interpretation. The term is rare as far as academic sources available online go but not so rare as to be insignificant especially as it contributes to the body of sources concerning the different kinds of Subbotniks. It is certainly more common that the term "Karaite Subbotniks" in google books which produces not even one Encyclopedic entry in English. only one of the book results listed actually uses the term. There are always going to be problems with misusage in sources not dedicated to the topic. That is why an Encyclopedic entry has more weight. A well respected classic Encyclopedia which has been continuously republished ever since it's first publication has even more weight.188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a proposal to you to help us move forward in this. Shall we start listing and quoting (without interpretation) every academic source on "Karaimites", "Karaite Subbotniks" and "Russian Karaites" we can find duscuss each ones merit in terms of weight and invite all the people involved in the original concensus discussion here to discuss whether or not they all really do refer to the same thing as the original concensus decided? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Caveat lector: this isn't my topic of expertise, but no one else took it from WP:3O for three days and I didn't want to leave you "hanging out to dry". However, given the criteria for usage of terminology and source notability are generally the same across the entire site, I'll try to assist here as best I can. I agree with User:188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah's suggestion - actually thought of suggesting it myself, but wasn't sure everyone will agree. The end goal should be to find the term that is most commonly used in literature, regardless of whether an editor agrees with it or not. In some cases this could be done statistically (eg. Google Ngram viewer), but in all cases I'd expect some argument based on notable sources, preferably domain-specific (that is - all else being equal, a monograph is preferable to a general-purpose encyclopedia). The most straightforward way to do this is indeed to list your supporting sources, along with their year of publication and your subjective assessment of notability, which would serve as a basis for comments by others: Google Ngram viewer (2018) - widely used for literary analysis, but not definitive I'll stay away unless you ping me ({{ping|François Robere}}). Cheers! François Robere (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:François Robere. Sadly there are no monographs available online about Karaimites in English. Maybe only in Russian?188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just an example. Use what you have. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The best we have is a Classic Encyclopedic entry User:François Robere. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:François Robere could we have your third opinion on the removal of the English word Karaimites as a translation of the Russian word Karaimiti from the article please? Currently the Article appears to say that"Russian Karaites" is the translation of the Russian word Karaimiti which is not perfectly accurate. Should we just go back to the concensus version before this controversy started? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Both Google Ngram and JSTOR searches show zero results for anything but the term "Russian Karaites". Assuming no other sources that support the other terms I would remove it.

As an aside: Karaite Judaism, the ancient Jewish sect that lent its name to the above, is known in Hebrew as Yahadut Karait (יהדות קראית) or Karaim (קראים, same), the former being the sect's name (cf. "Hasidic Judaism") and the latter the plural adjective designating its followers (cf. "Hasidim"). You can easily see how the English and Russian transliterations can be derived from the two different forms, explaining the difference in naming: Karait -> Karaite; and Karaim -> Karaimiti. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well first of all there are other sources (the best is a classic Encyclopedic entry) and secondly we can't remove the Subbotniks terms and rename the article "Russian Karaites" so sadly that opinion just doesn't help any. Thanks anyway User:François Robere. I appreciate you trying to engage. It might have helped if you had actually read through our discussion thouroughly first. According to the previous concensus discussion [12] the word Karaimit means "like Karaim" which is the same as the English word Karaimite. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thanks for taking a look. I don't think Google Ngram or even JSTOR searches on their own are particularly helpful here. Part of the problem is that beyond the group relevant to this article - the Subbotniks who adopted the Karaite branch of Judaism, to put it this way - there is a second group, the Crimean Karaites. The latter seem much better-studied in the literature, and I would expect that any search for "Russian Karaites" gives at least some hits that refer to the Crimean Karaites, not the Subbotniks. At the very least we'd have to review a sample of the sources themselves to make sure that "Russian Karaites" commonly refers to Subbotniks before using that term here, or we might have to explain that while the Karaite Subbotniks sometimes are called "Russian Karaites", they aren't the only group referred to as such. Since so far the discussion focused on whether we should call them "Karaimites" in the article, I haven't reviewed the sources for "Russian Karaites", so I don't know the exact situation. Huon (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Huon hits the nail on the head except that I still think we are not communicating well concerning what my objection to his removal of the word is. My only points are 1. It is not a made up word. 2. We have a great source showimg it is exactly the correct English translation of the Russian word used in the article. So why remove it? I honestly think removing it has simply confused the matter even more. So that François thinks that Russian Karaites is the correct English translation instead. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note about Hebrew for François. I spoke with a Hebrew-speaking friend who understands the issue. It is misleading to try and think about Hebrew concerning Karaimites because the concept is alien to Hebrew. It is just not possible to translate the word Karaimites (Russian Karaimiti) into Hebrew. Apparently it would just end up with a double plural. Instead you would have to say Gerim shel haKaraim but that is impossible because Karaites do not accept converts. So the concept is entirely "Goyish" apparently. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To repeat: The source using "Karaimites" to refer to Subbotniks is alone, it's very old, newer sources don't use that term to refer to Subbotniks and instead use it to refer to the Crimean Karaites. Using "Karaimites" here as if it were a commonly used name for the group is misleading. Huon (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah: It's sometimes easier in discussions like this to jump to the end rather than start at the start. Your discussion is actually much clearer now that I've had an overview of the matter.

@Huon: You can also do exclusive searches (eg. "this AND this NOT that") to help narrow down the results. Different search engines have different syntax, but usually there's an "advanced search" form that can help with complicated queries.

So everything boils down to resolution of a discrepancy between sources, which isn't an unusual problem. Some questions:

1. Do you both agree that the Encyclopedia is the only source supporting the use of "Karaimites", and that it's and otherwise notable source despite its age?
2. Do you have older sources supporting this?
3. Can you list several sources supporting the use of "Subbotnick Karaites"? You can link to a set of search results if you prefer.
4. If other, possibly older sources are found, would you both be satisfied with a phrase like "previously known as..." or "known in past literature as..."?
5. If it turns out only the Encyclopedia supports that use, would you both be satisfied with an endnote mentioning the specific transliteration and sourcing?

François Robere (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I agree that Hastings' encyclopedia is the only English-language source. No opinion on whether it's still relevant due to its age; I don't know enough about Hastings to judge that.
2. The only other source I know that clearly refers to a sub-group of Subbotniks as "Karaimites" is in French (and like English, the usage in French is ambiguous too).
3. Sources that refer to the Karaite Subbotniks as just "Karaites", or a variant thereof:
   • among Subbotniks there was also a divide between Talmudists and Karaites (also cited in the article as reference 8, describing them as "Russian Karaites"),
   • It deals with separation of the movement into the persuasions of "Karaites" and "Talmudists" (reference 21),
   • There are rural communities of Subbotniks in the Volgograd countryside. The connection with them is weak, and the local rabbi tends to view them as Karaites. (page 13, reference 1 in our article; otherwise the source uses "Karaite Subbotniks" on p. 9)
4. I'll answer the last two points together: Unless significant additional English-language sources are found that refer to this group as "Karaimites", I would not be happy with having this term in the article, particularly since there are more sources, and more recent ones, referring to the Crimean Karaites as "Karaimites". Adding it would not clarify things but rather muddy the waters unless we engage in heavy doses of WP:OR etymological explanations. Huon (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to ask Huon about his claim before going on to answer the 5 key points to agree on which @François Robere: identified. Huon said:

"newer sources don't use that term (Karaimites) to refer to Subbotniks and instead use it to refer to the Crimean Karaites."

And

"there are more sources, and more recent ones, referring to the Crimean Karaites as "Karaimites" "

I don't see any evidence at all to suggest that. I submit to you with all due respect Huon (and I do respect you) that you are simply interpreting the uses wrongly. Let us reason. The earliest English language appearance of the word is in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics which as you can see is so notably weighty that it has its own Wikipedia entry. The word did not come out of thin air. It was in a translation and summary of several more detailed Russian monographs which explore the phenomenon of the Karaite type of Subbotnikism. The use of the word Karaite is an adjective. Subbotniks are only "Karaites" figuratively not literally as we see in the sources that none of the different types of the Subbotniks were Jews at that time. Karaites meanwhile are Jews. Only after being assimilated into the modern state of Israel can we now say that many Subbotniks have become Jews. But I am digressing.

Every subsequent use of the word (Karaimite) must be based either on translations of the original Russian texts or from conscious use of the Encyclopedic definition. Surely if Karaims or Karaites were meant since they are the more common words for Crimean Karaites then why on earth ould the authors resort to such an unusual term for Crimean Karaites if that is indeed what was meant? It just does not stand to reason.

Nevertheless, please present your evidence concerning those two statements of yours Huon. I would like to see exactly where your confusion is coming from and whether it will confuse me too.

Currently in my mind the issue is extremely clear. You replaced the original concensus sentence from the article [13] (turning "Karaite Subbotniks (Russian: Субботники-Караимиты): also described as "Russian Karaites" (Русские Караимы) or Karaimites (Russian: Караимиты)" into "Karaite Subbotniks (Russian: Субботники-Караимиты): also described as "Russian Karaites" (Русские Караимы), in Russian also called Караимиты" and even more confusingly it now reads "Karaite Subbotniks (Russian: Субботники-Караимиты): also described as "Russian Karaites" (Russian: Караимиты)"!) and I say that should be undone because it just clouds the rather murky issue even more.

188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime to answer your points François:

1. it is not the only English source but it is the most detailed, the closest to a monograph (in English) and definitely the most notable and still valid being republished every decade or so.
2. There appears to be no older source for the word in English. It appears to be the first time the subject was translated into English and every subsequent usage must therefore either be retranslating it from Russian or making use of the Encyclopedia.
3. No. The concept of "Subbotnik Karaites" where Subbotnik is the adjective and Karaite is the subject does not appear to have even one occurrence in any search on Google. Reversing it, however, so that Karaite is the adjective and Subbotnik us the subject then yes there arw several good results "Karaite+Subbotniks"&client=ms-android-lenovo&prmd=ivmn&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil9ZK7krTZAhXLzaQKHSbUBWcQ_AUICSgA&biw=320&bih=488&dpr=1.5 and is at least one result in Google books "Karaite+Subbotniks"&dq="Karaite+Subbotniks"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil9ZK7krTZAhXLzaQKHSbUBWcQ6AEIHjAA. Karaite Subbotniks is definitely the more common English language term for Karaimites which appears to be the oldest English term (but not yet quite obsolete) for them. However there are no older texts in English making reference to Karaite Subbotniks. They were referred to as a Russian "Karaimite" Judaizing sect. One report [14] identifies the Judaized Karaimites as originally Moslems from Lithuania which fits exactly Alexander Zaid's family (Zaid is a Lithuania Muslim family) he is mentioned in this Subbotniks article.
4. Yes. Perhaps "First mentioned in English as..."
5. I am sure every usage repeats the Encyclopedic usage. Sadly only the Encyclopedic entry is detailed and clear without need to interpret. Nevertheless, I would anyway be satisfied with an endnote mentioning the specific transliteration and sourcing. I believe that it is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia that an entry on the subject from a renowned Encyclopedia simply be dismissed outright or "censored" from the article.

I do want Huon to answer my challenge concerning the sources he claims to have found before moving forward though first please. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Any tips on how to make my external links to results work beautifully instead of scrawl across the page will be much appreciated.188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

~ Interlude ~

The question here is not what's the correct form, but what's the common form. For us to decide what is correct would constitute WP:RS (to say we never do that would be pretense, but this isn't the case). We are looking, eventually, for the term that the reader would be most familiar with; we are eventually just aggregators of information the reader could already have access to, if not acquaintance with, and we cannot dissent with those sources. The reader in this case is a speaker of English, the sources are written in English, and the terminology we must use as far as possible is English; it might be wrong for a number of reasons, but it is the terminology more familiar to the reader. We should limit our discussion to the English sources and the varieties they present rather than to the Russian originals, assuming they refer to the same subject.

~ End ~

From what I can tell at the moment, both of you are right in part. Huon, that the English sources tend towards your version; Blah, that one particularly notable source tends towards yours. The consensus discussion that was linked above preferred neither (it was about content, not naming), so neither is a breach of consensus. Blah is right in noting the source has been notable enough to be republished again and again without errata; someone, somewhere, who's better acquainted with the sect than either of us, seems to have thought the transliteration true enough to the original to keep it in subsequent editions. Unless we dispute that source's notability, we can't ignore it. If to both of you that source is generally reliable even if in this case it digresses from what seems to be common use, I suggest (continuing from my question above) adding it as an endnote with the full explanation of who and why. I believe that, if properly phrased, this should make sense to the reader rather than confuse them. An equally viable alternative is indeed to call upon all involved users thus far, with the possible addition of some from WP:WikiProject History, to opine. François Robere (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

PS - on links: Just do this: [https://www.subbotnikdaily.com/ Subbotnik Daily - news, culture and fashion for the modern Subbotniki]

Sources that use "Karaimite" or "Karaimites" to refer to non-Subbotniks:

• Among the Jews the Karaimite are noticeable - since I believe 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah argues that the Karaite Subbotniks are not Jews, they'll agree that these Karaimite Jews must be someone else, presumably the Crimean Karaites though there's not enough context in the snippet to be sure about that. It's also an even older source than Hastings, with editions dating back to 1880.
• The Karaimites used the Hebrew alphabet and their Karaimite language belonged to the Kipchak group of Turkic languages. Clearly not Subbotniks, who spoke Russian.

Since two is more than one, that should already suffice, though I'd argue that many of the other references to "Karaimites" which don't make the connection explicit refer to non-Subbotniks; that includes, for example, the sources referring to Karaimites in Poland or Lithuania. In particular, while this is not a reliable source, I don't see how "an ancient, local Lithuanian-Moslem ethnic and religious community" exactly fits the Subbotniks, which are neither "ancient", nor local to Lithuania, nor Muslims of any kind, nor an ethnic community. Other sources confirm that indeed Crimean Karaites were settled in Lithuania in the middle ages, which means this is a reference to the Crimean Karaites, not the Subbotniks.

So we're at two unambiguous reliable sources referring to Crimean Karaites as "Karaimites", plus one unreliable source and several other probable ones that don't quite make the connection explicit.

Much of the above comment by 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah is just the kind of OR explanation we should avoid. I'll ask for more input from relevant WikiProjects. Huon (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will repeat once again: User Huon is right from the get go above and I agree with everything he has written here so far. I also want to congratulate on a very well done and impressive research on a very murky subject. This other person here (blah) seems to have some personal interest in obfuscating and muddying the waters try to confuse readers abd conflate together two subjects that are separate and should remain so. One is Crimean Karaites that were originally Karaite Jews but that for internal reasons of Imperial Russian politics tried to present themselves as completely non-Jews. The other, separate subject is Subbotniks, which are basically non-Jewish judaizers mostly in post-Imperial Soviet Russia. I trust that Toddy1 will also have sonetthing to say about this new sockpuppet of banned user Kaz/YuHuw. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(!?!) I am not a sock puppet. I am not a banned user. I am not a Moslem. And I am not a Crimean Karaite. Neither am I a Subbotnik for that matter. And my personal information should not be of interest to anyone here unless I offer it. And I am not going to be drawn into providing any more personal information about myself here until I see fit. Call me Elvis Presley, call me a Martian if you like but be civil. Let that be the end of the matter. Out of interest though, what have I written that conflates the two subjects that are separate and should remain so? The only person here trying to conflate Crimean Karaites with Subbotniks is Huon. I whole heartedly agree the two are separate subjects. That is the entire reason I am not able to agree with Huon on this matter. So it is even more interesting to me to know exactly how you can completely agree with Huon that Karaimite Subbotniks are Crimean Karaites while saying that I am the one trying to mix and confuse the two separate subjects together! 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Huon, you provided two contradictory sources in response to my challenge. Neither of them agree with each other. The older one makes clear that calling the Karaimites "Jews" was to rile the Jews who objected to that (no doubt the same way Warshy has attempted to rile me). Is there another source which says they are Jews in all seriousness? Marian meanwhile specifically does not count them as Jews but distinguishes them from Jews. You said you have more than one source which identifies Karaimites as Crimean Karaite Jews. I'm still waiting for you to produce one. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"The only person here trying to conflate Crimean Karaites with Subbotniks is Huon." - That's strong from the person who brought Nehemia Gordon to this page as if the "Karaylar-Karaites" he talks about had any relevance to this topic. It was also you, not me, who claimed that Marian Feldman's Karaimites were relevant to this article when they aren't (see for example the quote here which clearly establishes that Feldman refers to Crimean Karaites), and who argued that this American church newsletter referred to Subbotniks when it clearly doesn't.

I have explained, at length and repeatedly, with examples, that there are more sources referring to the Crimean Karaites as "Karaimites" than to the Karaite Subbotniks, and that the latter are more commonly referred to by other names. All of that gets dismissed with "I'm still waiting for you to produce one". That's not arguing in good faith, and combined with the repeated off-topic deviations into who is and who isn't a Jew, I suspect there's some ulterior POV-pushing going on.

I have nothing further to say to 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah, and if I had, it would likely be either ignored or misrepresented like the above ("how you can completely agree with Huon that Karaimite Subbotniks are Crimean Karaites" - I never argued that, and neither did warshy, who says the exact opposite). If anyone else wishes to discuss the issue, I'll keep this page on my watchlist. Huon (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very sad that you are assuming bad faith and have decided to get personal. The issue was simple. You removed a valid alternative name which only refers to uncircumcised Subbotnik Jews. It does not refer to Crimean Karaite Jews. You alone have intentionally been trying to equate Karaimite Subbotniks with Crimean Karaites. I have explained Nehemiah Gordon below.

Marian Feldman is not talking about Karaite Jews who are universally considered Jews according to Judaism. She makes a clear distinction between Jews and Karaimites (who she says use the Hebrew alphabet). She says she was the only Jew in her class which includes many other groups including two Karaimites. Nevertheless other (presumably non Jewish) authors disagree with her that Karaimite Subbotniks are a kind of Jew. Kipchak languages were once common in the Russian Empire so there is no reason to assume based on that alone that she is talking about Crimean Karaites. That is an assumption. You might be correct but there is no way that it can be said the source proves your assumption to be factual. Even if it did (ignoring the problem that she says she was the only Jew and did not count the two Karaimites she mentioned as Jews) then it would still be the only source to suggest that unless you now support that opinion with the American Church Newsletter which you already dismissed as unreliable. Are you changing your mind? If so let's discuss what that source means. I say it simply can not be referring to Crimean Karaite Jews (unless Crimean Karaites are Moslems but I see no evidence for that and I think no one has ever suggested that anywhere).

You have indeed stated many times that:

"that there are more sources referring to the Crimean Karaites as "Karaimites" than to the Karaite Subbotniks"

But you are still yet to produce ONE single source which makes that unmistakably clear. I only see confused interpretation and assumption. If you are saying that the American Church Newsletter is about Crimean Karaites then you are also saying Crimean Karaites are Moslems. Let me ask HERE anyone who knows. Are Crimean Karaite to be considered Moslems not Jews? EVIDENCE PLEASE. (I am using CAPs not to shout only to draw attention to the point.) If so then I will concede that Karaimites has more than one meaning in the sources available. But otherwise WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? I have never ignored you and I promise to engage with any clear and unambiguous source you provide in good faith. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, if you have any, I will concede that the word Karaimites has more than one meaning. But it must be unmistakable and not subject to interpretation. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Неполканов:, you appear to be a bit of an expert on certain Russian sects. Does the Russian word Karaimites (Караимиты) have more than one meaning? Does it also refer to Crimean Karaites? Or does it only refer to a type of Subbotniks? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karaimit in Russian means like Karaim, while Karaim in Russian means Crimean Karaite. Obviously Marian Feldman does not understand this describing good known community of Crimean Karaites from Lutsk as Karaimites. To my opinion she may not be considered as RS.Неполканов (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I see that the problematic source is transaltion from Polish,Possibly the reason of this mislead is the bad translations issue. Неполканов (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karaimite Subbotniks (sources)

I struck through part of my previous comment because I presumed it was about a different source without checking. In fact I have no objection that uncircumcised Karaimite Subbotniks are referred to as Jews (obviously not uncontroversially) "Karaimite+Jews"+"met+to+plan+an+effective+campaign+to+abolish+Judaism+from+their+midst."&oq="Karaimite+Jews"+"met+to+plan+an+effective+campaign+to+abolish+Judaism+from+their+midst."&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12...11414.39570.0.44851.113.37.0.0.0.0.287.1630.0j4j4.8.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..108.0.0....245.VauY4bbZg-Q including this author. Perhaps this will be the only kind of "Judaism" welcome in Iceland considering the anti circumcision law. But clearly there are Jews (e.g. Marian Feldman) who object to this designation. Nevertheless, all that is beside the point. Judaizing Karaimites Subbotniks are not Dejudaizing Crimean Karaites but I accept that some authors might not have been able to distinguish between the two. Even though, I have not seen such a source yet. Others could not distinguish between them and Lithuanian Muslims if Huon is right that that one was not a reliable source, but I'd like to know how he decided that. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I had to create a new section because my browserer is crashing due to the length of the previous section. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere:, just in case you misunderstood my intention, the objection is about the removal of a notably sourced alternate English name for Subbotniks from the text. It is not about renaming the article. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean... The MO is the same, start as an IP, then register a User that looks suspect. And then, the long postings, misspellings, numerous corrections and additions, PSs, etc. etc. etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to me it still would seem that IT IS A DUCK (sockpuppet). I may be wrong, of course... warshy ^(¥¥) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah: I understand. I stand by my previous suggestion. Huon chose to go the WikiProject route; hopefully it'll help resolve the issue.

@Warshy: I don't know the other user you mentioned, and I understand they've proved... difficult, but be careful with accusations. This one too deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers! François Robere (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray here, User François Robere, and thank you for your contributions to the discussion so far. If you looked at the old archives of the Crimean Karaites page you maybe would get an idea of what "difficult" here, in this murky area of Russian small religious sects, really mean... Truly gruesome! Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See my latest reply above. Sockpuppet or no, 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah is routinely dismissing sources that disagree with his preconceived notions, misrepresents sources and misrepresents others' positions. There's no point trying to discuss the issue under these circumstances. Huon (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I usually ignore people who make personal attacks against me but since I hope we can reach a positive conclusion on this let me respond to your accusations.

I have not dismissed nor misrepresented any sources which you produced. I overlooked one once but apologized for it afterwards. But you have dismissed mine. As for misrepresenting positions, you are trying to present me as a bad faith POV phisher while I am not misrepresenting you. You still argue that Karaimites has more than one meaning besides Judaizing Karaimite Subbotniks and you say one of those meanings is Dejudaizing Crimean Karaites which at least a couple of editors here consider to be two distinct subjects. For a brief moment I did get confused by Nehemiah Gordon's article which I did not read carefully but as soon as I realized that I took your side on deleting his Wikipedia entry.

Since you have decided to let this discussion sour, I can only offer you an olive branch and ask you to reconsider giving up. The only real issue is that you assumed I have a bad faith agenda. My only agenda is to make worthy contributions by accurately reporting facts neutrally without prejudice to enhance articles on wikipedia. If that is not the Wikipedian purpose then I am in the wrong place and will also give up.

User:François Robere am I right that you agree the Encyclopedic entry deserves brief coverage in the article? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See my previous comment. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, no one has disputed it's notability and User:Неполканов has very helpfully clarified the correct meaning of the word Karaimites which is in agreement with the definition presented in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. He has also clarified that the Marian Feldman quote is not RS but is a mistranslation from Polish. Karaimites are not Crimean Karaites.

I think it is time to restore the deleted word back to the article (this time including the best correct reference) and correct the mistake of this unwise edit before someone else comes along confusing Karaimite Subbotniks with Crimean Karaites. Any objections? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The mentioned edit was done because it was decided that the ;Karaimite' is not English term. If it is really English word(and I strongly doubt that it so) I have no objection to revert the edit. Неполканов (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to capture the gist of the issue. A few writers use the words "Karaimite" or "Karaimites" in English-language texts, and one of them refers to Subbotniks (while others do not), but it's not a commonly nor consistently used English term. Huon (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And all this sophistry so this guy can pop up next back in the Crimean Karaites article and start claiming that they are really Subbotniks, not Karaites? In my view one of you two (Huon or Неполканов) should revert his non-consensus change immediately. Or you want me to? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I just did and was reverted for "vandalism", a clearly bogus claim. Huon (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted and posted a message on his talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The word appears in a classic English Encyclopedic entry on Judaizing which translates passages from various russian sources including Bulgakov. Here is the original from Louis H. Gray's entry "Judaizing" section 8 "Recrudescent forms" subsection C "Karaimites" on page 612 in Volume 7 of "Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics" 2013:

"(c) Karaimites or Karimit (“Karaitizers'), who, like the Karaites q.v. recognize only the Pentateuch and reject the Talmud, but who do not observe all the Pentateuchal laws, e.g. that regarding circumcision"

Here is a link to an older version available online "karaimites"&focus=searchwithinvolume&q="karaimites" 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Those are good refs. They should be in the article. Only a complete and utter retard would remove them. Let's see if there are any here. Don't be so polite. If anyone removes them just WP:IGNORE. WP I'd about building good articles not about egos. YuHuw (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Zaïd

I made an edit which was reverted to the concensus version so I will explain my reasons (the way Wikipedia says it should be done) here in talk.

Alexander's Mother was a Subbotnik, so he was not a Jew since Jewishness is inherited ftom the mother. His father was Lithuanian. He was born in Irkutsk and his family made Aliyah to Ottoman Palestine in South Syria long before the modern state of Israel was established, so he wasn't an Israeli either. Can we find a better way to phrase this sentence so that it isn't misleading?

"Their (First Aliyah Subbotniks) descendants include Israeli Jews such as Rafael Eitan and Alexander Zaïd."

Currently it gives the impression that he was a native born Israeli descendant of First Aliyah Subbotniks while in fact he himself was in one of the first groups to make Aliyah. Any suggestions? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Zaïd's father was not Lithuanian. He was Vilna Jew. Zaid is Jewish, not Lithanian, name.The Zionist Jews in British Palestine were secular Jews and were not worried too much about Halacha rules of Jewishness.

I agree with you that Israeli Jew may sound misleading before Israel state establishment. But Rafael Eitan also was not born in Israel state. The both are belong to the people ,that is called now Israeli Jews. So this misleading is really neglible. Неполканов (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I accept that explanation, but still he was not descended from immigrants since he himself was an immigrant. How do you think this anachronism should be resolved? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He immigrated being three years old. So he was not differ at all from the native born Israeli descendants. I do not see meaningfull reason to change anythingНеполканов (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What about for the sake of plain simple accuracy and Encyclopedic quality and integrity? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Claim that Alexander Zaïd was Subbotnik is much more misleading and inaccurate, because only his mother was Subbotnik and he grew like Zionist Jew. Also his family was not pure Subbotnik family (like e.g. Dubrovins). These small details are relevant only for Alexander Zaïd article, not for current brief overview article. Неполканов (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Good points. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Gibberish sentence

The last paragraph of § State of Israel includes a sentence beginning

The ruling was under abolished in 2014,

This is nonsensical and should be corrected, but I can't figure out what was meant. --Thnidu (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)