![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Armenia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The first adventists in Russia were Germans. I read that the subbotniks helped them (mission). Is that right?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any comments on the new lead please? Is it acceptable? YuHuw ( talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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:
I'll stay away unless you ping me ( |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
[https://www.subbotnikdaily.com/ Subbotnik Daily - news, culture and fashion for the modern Subbotniki]
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
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)
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?
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)
The last paragraph of § State of Israel includes a sentence beginning
This is nonsensical and should be corrected, but I can't figure out what was meant. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Armenia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The first adventists in Russia were Germans. I read that the subbotniks helped them (mission). Is that right?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any comments on the new lead please? Is it acceptable? YuHuw ( talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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:
I'll stay away unless you ping me ( |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
[https://www.subbotnikdaily.com/ Subbotnik Daily - news, culture and fashion for the modern Subbotniki]
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
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)
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?
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)
The last paragraph of § State of Israel includes a sentence beginning
This is nonsensical and should be corrected, but I can't figure out what was meant. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)