text:
New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title (indigenous title). These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General
In 1997, an application was made to the Māori Land Court requesting, amongst other matters, that "the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds, extending the limits of New Zealand's territorial sea" be defined as Māori customary land under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. The Māori Land Court determined that it could consider the issue, but was overruled by the High Court. On 19 June 2003, New Zealand's Court of Appeal ruled in Ngati Apa v Attorney-General, amongst other matters, that:

 * 1) "The definition of 'land' in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 did not necessarily exclude foreshore and seabed";
 * 2) "The title vested in the Crown was radical title which was not inconsistent with native title";
 * 3) Various Acts had influence over but did not extinguish property rights;
 * 4) The Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine "an investigation of the title to the land ... under s 132 and an order determining the relative interests of the owners of the land".

In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach
The Court of Appeal overturned a line of precedent dating back to the 1877 decision in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington, and affirmed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the 1963 Ninety Mile Beach decision. These early decisions held that because of circumstances unique to New Zealand, Māori land ties were so weak that they could be extinguished through such indirect routes as unrelated phrases in legislation or through the Māori Land Court’s investigation of dry land adjoining the foreshore.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal found that "native property rights are not to be extinguished by a side wind.... The need for 'clear and plain' extinguishment is well established and is not met in this case. In the Ninety-Mile Beach case, the Court did not recognise that principle of interpretation". The ruling was foreshadowed by academic work during the late 1980s and 1990s, which argued that the Ninety Mile Beach case was wrongly decided.

Initial responses
The ruling granted only the right to pursue establishing an interest. Experts such as Paul McHugh of Cambridge University stated that this was unlikely to result in full exclusive ownership, but these assurances were not strong enough to counter the perception that the door was now open for Māori to claim title to the entire coastline of New Zealand through the Māori Land Court. The prospect of a successful claim was reported as having created considerable hostility in many sectors of society as New Zealand has a strong tradition of public access to beaches and waterways and this was perceived as being under threat. The prime minister, Helen Clark of the Labour Party, announced that the government would legislate to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

At the same time, however, the government was strongly attacked by the opposition National Party, led by Don Brash. In sharp contrast to Te Ope Mana a Tai, the National Party claimed that the government's proposals were too favourable towards Māori. While the government's plan did indeed vest ownership in the state, they also incorporated provision for Māori to be consulted over matters relating to the foreshore and seabed. The National Party claimed that Māori were to be given too much control, and that the government was giving rights to Māori over and above those possessed by other New Zealanders.

Once the Government's policy framework was released, the Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent inquiry into the government policy. The hearing took place over six days in late January 2004, and a report was issued four weeks later. The tribunal issued a report that was highly critical of the Crown’s approach. The Government response was equally sharp and critical, accusing the tribunal of ‘implicitly’ rejecting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.. The Attorney-General, taking a more middle ground, conceded that the policy was prima facie discriminatory, but concluded that this infringement was "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Human Rights Commission took another view, arguing that the legislation was discriminatory and not justified by section 5.

Ongoing debate
Although under attack from both sides, the government chose to press forward with its legislation, asserting that what it called its "middle way" was the only means of satisfactorily resolving the controversy. Criticism of the government, both from Māori and from opposition parties, continued to intensify, and the government began to lose ground in opinion polls.

On 27 January 2004, National Party leader Don Brash delivered a speech at Orewa that was highly critical of the government's policy towards Māori. Brash said that the government was showing strong favouritism to Māori, both in the foreshore and seabed debate and in many other areas of government policy. Brash's speech was condemned both by the government and by many Māori groups, but met with widespread approval from many other sectors of New Zealand society. This support was boosted by the successful ‘iwi/Kiwi’ billboard campaign which followed Brash’s speech. These billboards framed the foreshore debate as the Labour Party’s attempt to restrict public access to beaches, while the National Party would protect this aspect of the ‘Kiwi way of life’. Shortly afterwards, an opinion poll put the National Party ahead of the Labour Party for the first time in over 18 months.

The government was also facing serious internal debate over its proposed legislation. Many of the party's Māori MPs were deeply unhappy with the government's plans, and raised the possibility of breaking ranks to oppose the legislation in Parliament. This left the government unsure of whether it had a sufficient number of votes to pass its legislation through Parliament. In theory, the government had a narrow majority willing to support its proposed bill, with Labour, the Progressives, and United Future all prepared to vote in favour. If two of Labour's Māori MPs were to vote against the bill, however, it would fail. Moreover, any attempt to make the bill more favourable to these MPs would risk losing the support of United Future.

On 8 April 2004, it was announced that the centrist-nationalist New Zealand First party would give its support to the legislation. New Zealand First's price for this support was that ownership of the seabed and foreshore would be vested solely in the Crown, ending the concept of "public domain" (vesting ownership in the public at large rather than in the state) that United Future had promoted. United Future withdrew its support for the legislation, but New Zealand First provided sufficient votes to make this irrelevant. It is believed that Helen Clark preferred United Future's "public domain", and this was acknowledged by United Future leader Peter Dunne, but United Future could not provide enough votes to guarantee the bill's passage, forcing Labour to seek support elsewhere.

One of the strongest critics of the bill within the Labour Party was Tariana Turia, a junior minister. Turia indicated on a number of occasions that she might vote against the government's bill, but for a considerable time refused to give a final decision. It was made clear that voting against a government bill was "incompatible" with serving as a minister, and that doing so would result in Turia's dismissal from that role. Turia was encouraged to either abstain or simply be absent when the vote was taken. On 30 April, however, Turia announced that she would vote against the legislation, and would resign (effective 17 May 2004) from the Labour Party to contest a by-election in her electorate. She was dismissed from her ministerial post by the Prime Minister the same day. Another Labour MP, Nanaia Mahuta, eventually decided that she would also vote against the bill, but chose not to leave the Labour Party. Mahuta had no ministerial post to be dismissed from.

On 5 May 2004, a hīkoi (a long walk or march — in this case, a protest march) arrived in Wellington. It had begun in Northland thirteen days earlier, picking up supporters as they drove to the capital. The hīkoi, which some estimated to contain fifteen thousand people by the time it reached Parliament, strongly opposed the government's plans, and was highly supportive of Tariana Turia's decision.

Turia and her allies, believing that the time was right for an independent Māori political vehicle, established a new Māori Party. Many of Turia's supporters, such as Mana Motuhake leader Willie Jackson and Māori academic Pita Sharples, claimed that Māori who formerly supported Labour would flock to the new party en masse. On the other hand, other commentators pointed to a poor track record for Māori parties in the past, and said that it would be difficult to unite diverse Māori opinion into a single group.

On 18 November 2004, Tim Selwyn put an axe through a window of the electorate office of Helen Clark, an act he described as a protest against Helen Clark's handling of the issue.

Legislation
On 18 November 2004, the Labour–Progressive government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which declared that the land in question was owned by the Crown. Māori can, however, apply for "guardianship" of certain areas. The act was highly contentious.

The government's foreshore and seabed bill passed its first vote in Parliament on 7 May 2004, backed by Labour, the Progressives, and New Zealand First. The National Party opposed the bill, saying that it gave too much control to Māori, United Future opposed it due to the removal of the public domain concept and ACT opposed it on the grounds of the legislation being retrospective, that it was a denial of property rights (in this case Māori property rights), and that it was an unwarranted incursion by the Crown into areas that were specifically Tikanga Māori. The Greens, another party in Parliament to take a position similar to that of the Māori protesters, also voted against the bill, saying that it overrode Māori rights and offered no guarantee that the land would not later be sold. Tariana Turia and Nanaia Mahuta both voted against the bill. The first vote tally was 65 in favour and 55 against. Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen, told Parliament that the bill "safeguards the seabed and foreshore for everyone", protecting the rights of both Māori and non-Māori. Opposition to the bill remained strong, however, and protests and criticism continued as the government's legislation progressed.

The bill's passage through its first vote meant that it was then considered by a special select committee of Parliament, which heard public submissions on the matter. The select committee having allowed six months for submissions, reported back to the parliament in November that they had been unable to agree on a position and were therefore reporting back the bill with no recommendations whatsoever. The bill, slightly amended by the Government itself, passed its second vote on 17 November 2004 by the same margin as in the first vote. It was then considered by a Committee of the House (with Parliament sitting under urgency). It finally received its third vote on 18 November 2004. The final vote tally was 66 in favour and 54 against — Nanaia Mahuta, who had previously voted against, this time voted in favour.

On 15 December, the legislation was modified slightly after it was realised that as it was written, the act nationalised all council-owned land reclaimed from the sea. This included areas such as Auckland's Britomart and Wellington's waterfront. This was not part of the intention of the act.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, after being asked by Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu to consider the legislation, issued a report on 12 March 2005 stating that the foreshore and seabed legislation discriminates against Māori by extinguishing the possibility of establishing Māori customary title over the foreshore and seabed, and by not providing a means of redress. Tariana Turia and the Māori Party claimed this as a significant victory, although the report did not prompt any change in government policy.

Situation following the controversy
The foreshore and seabed issue, as part of the larger race relations debate, was one of the most significant points of contention in New Zealand politics at the time, and remains a significant issue for many people. The Labour government's popularity was severely damaged by the affair, although subsequent polls showed that it recovered its support and Labour was elected for a third term in September 2005.

While the act was widely criticised by Māori, some iwi have chosen to negotiate agreement within the bounds of the act. The first agreement made through the act was ratified by Ngāti Porou and the Crown in October 2008 (see below).

Special Rapporteur
In November 2005, following government criticism of the report issued by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), Special Rapporteur Professor Stavenhagen, a Mexican researcher who reports to UNCERD, arrived in New Zealand at the invitation of the Government. He attended four hui and heard severe criticism of the government. He also met with Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen who crafted the foreshore law. While the foreshore and seabed issue was central to his visit, discussions also related to Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and economic, social and cultural rights generally. On 25 November 2005 he issued a statement which noted that “[w]hile the standard of living of the Māori of New Zealand has improved and is better than that of indigenous peoples in poorer countries, there is widespread concern that the gap in social and economic conditions is actually growing larger and an increasing proportion of Māori are being left behind”. His final report was completed in March 2006. It was highly critical of the Government in a number of areas, including the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which it recommended should be repealed or significantly amended. The Government response to this further criticism was again negative describing Professor Stavenhagen's report as "disappointing, unbalanced and narrow".

Member's bill
In October 2006, Tariana Turia introduced a member's bill designed to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In recreating the legal status before the Foreshore and Seabed Act was passed, however, the bill was reported to vest ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. Turia denied that her bill would do anything but repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in its entirety and described Labour's descriptions as "scaremongering".

First foreshore and seabed agreement signed
The first foreshore and seabed agreement was ratified on 31 October 2008. The agreement was negotiated between people of the Ngāti Porou area on New Zealand's East Cape and the Crown (effectively the New Zealand government). The NZPA reported about 200 people representing Ngāti Porou were present to witness the signing of the deed. The deed protects customary rights of local iwi and retains wider public access to Ngāti Porou coastal areas.

Continued calls for repeal
Following a change of government with the election of National in November 2008, the Green Party continued to call for repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

National front bencher Christopher Finlayson, sworn in as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in November 2008, described the act as "discriminatory and unfair". Commentary at the time of his appointment suggested the Foreshore and Seabed Act would be reviewed under a National government.

Announcement of repeal
On 14 June 2010, Prime Minister John Key announced that he would be proposing the repeal of the act. The replacement Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, proposed in late 2010, in turn created opposition from both sides. Some Māori argued that the bill was a fraud as essentially no Māori groups would meet the test for increased rights to the foreshore, while others, such as the Coastal Coalition, felt that the bill risks free access to coastal areas for a large part of New Zealanders.


text:
Talk:Karaite Judaism

Local and Global Leadership
I would like to suggest the addition of a section explaining the leadership aspect within KJ. Many people who have heard of KJ, but don't know much about it, assume that KJ has rabbis like Rabbinic Judaism. However, in KJ, a ḥaḵam fills some of the role in KJ that rabbis fill in RJ (although, how that is executed in each is a little different, which could be explained). Also, the role of the ḥazzan could also be elaborated. Both of these can be explained without too much detail as there are dedicated articles for both ḥaḵamîm and ḥazzanîm which give a wider picture to their roles. At this point, it might be a good place to mention the most significant differences between a rabbinic and a karaite bêt kĕnesset (lack of benches/chairs, who's in charge, et cætera).

On a more global level, there is the Moˁeṣet HaḤaḵamîm ("Council of Sages"), World Karaite Movement, and Karaite Jewish University which have an influence on the global Karaite community. The last of which (KJU), may be the only real inroute for non-Jews to officially convert to KJ outside of Israel (at least, in the eyes of the state of Israel). Who does the global community look to as an authority for the sighting of the New Crescent Moon (for marking the new months and new years) in The Land? Also, it could be explained to readers that there is no Jewish version of the Pope.

It seems there is enough material to fill out a decent section. What prompted me to think about this was the use of the title Ḥaḵam through the article, but (as far as I have noticed) no explanation (nor wikilink) for the lay reader. Placement of the section as early as possible in the article would be helpful (the history section, Russian subsection uses the term "ḥaḵam"), but may not be best placed before the history section (maybe immediately after, just before the beliefs section).

Thoughts, anyone? — al-Shimoni  (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your idea sounds OK to me, al-Shimoni. If you want to write it, I would say go ahead. I can try to help revise it after it is added. If we just link the first occurrence of Hakham in the article as it is, the section would not have to be too long, it seems to me? Regards, warshytalk 13:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reduction of See Also and External Links sections
Both of these sections were already template tagged as violating WP guidelines concerning the See Also and External Links sections. The External Links section was particularly bad as it contained many blogs, minor sites in non-English, dead websites, websites not even related to the topic, etc. The See Also section had so many entries that it was subsectioned into various categories (admittedly, I was the one who organized it into sections a long time ago because it was a long mess). Many of the topics see-alsoed were already wikilinked in the body of the article. The only remaining hint of sectioning is three people who are secondary bulleted under the List of Karaite Jews bullet. Although not perfect, these two sections now better comply to WP's guidelines. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some pictures from the heritage of the Turkish Karaite jewish community at this link. I know very little about WP copyright handling, so leave the source for whoever would be interested in adding pics to the article. --E4024 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A revision of Karaite history from a fresh partisan/sectarian perspective
For editors here interested in, and who focus on Karaite history more specifically, an entire revision of it is being undertaken in Wikipedia right now by an avowed priest of a supposed "Islamic Mosaist" sect. For those interested, the hub/nub of this new attemtp to completely rewrite Karaite history from a purely Islamic perspective is here. warshytalk 18:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Karaite Jewish sages like (Jeshua ben Judah and Jacob ben Reuben of Byzanteum) have always done their best to make sure the Khazar converts (Karaimlar) should never be confused with real Karaite Jews. It is bad enough that sites like this one http://karaism.org/ think all Karaites are Khazar Karaims isn't it? Why do you want to keep the distinction blurred? So that you can claim to be a Karaite Jew while being uncircumcised and believing in Jesus and Muhammad at the same time? Karaims and genuine Karaite Jews are very clearly distinct. Read John Kinnamos. Kaz 17:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 * (Corrected wikilink above.) --E4024 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Kaz 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kaz, For what it's worth, it looks like the website at karaism.org is, thankfully, no more. Someone seems to have snatched it from the previous owner and put something more appropriate in its place. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

how many Karaites in Istanbul?
The section Karaites today" starts with about 100 families in Istanbul and later says "there are about 80 Karaites living in Istanbul". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Missionary Evangelisation?
It seems to me that certain users are attempting to evangelise by regurgitating an oft-repeated mistranslation of the Russian word Evrei as Jews (Iudei) rather than Hebrews. Using this mantle, these missionaries are able to insert passages into articles like this one to convince the Karaite Jewish audience that the Karaims of Eastern Europe (Crimea, Russia etc.) were once Karaite Jews, rather than Karai-Tatars (meaning black tatars) Tengri worshippers who were converted to an early form of Unitarianism and who have been confused with Jews ever since. The intention obviously being to encourage Karaites Jews to read the works of Jesus and Muhammad and discover "Messianic Karaite Judaism". Warshy seems particularly interested in hiding the Karai-Tatar truth and pushing the Evrei = Jewish POV. But he is certainly not alone. The truth about the Karaims of Eastern Europe is that there was only a question on their identity after Catherine the Creat partitioned the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth and invaded Crimea. At this point the Karaims first came to the attention of the Russian authorities. While the Karaims had enjoyed officer-rank privileges under the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Russians were not sure at first how to apply the anti-Jewish legislation inherited from the Commonwealth, and the question of whether Karaims were meant to be included under the legislation arose. Within two years, Benjamin Aga had explained the history of the Karaims to Tzarina Catherine the Great, and the Officer-privileges for Karaims were enshrined in Russian law and not long after that the Imperial Russian Orthodox Church granted the Church of the Karaims official status with two diocese putting them on an equal status with Islam in the Empire. However, the Wiki-Missionaries present quite a different POV throughout all the wiki articles, that except for their Tatar identity the views of the Karaims of Eastern Europe may have had a legitimate place amidst the Karaite Jews. They present the Karaims' "Khazar" identity (which has always been well-accepted in Russian academic circles e.g. ) as a late 19th century fabrication apparently in the hopes that young Karaite Jews will find the references to "Christ and Muhammad" prior to these dates and consider that there might be some room for the teachings of Jesus within Karaite Judaism from a Unitarian stance.

Thus it seems to me that the Russian and Crimean and Lithuanian sections of the article need to be reduced significantly to reflect the historical facts rather than a mixture of Missionary POV pushing and prejudicial fantasy. It seems it would be sufficient to have a section saying something like:
 * Possible Karaite Jewish origins of the Karaims
 * It has been suggested by X, Y, and Z that the Karaims of Eastern Europe (Crimea, Lithuania, Russia, etc.) may have originated with Karaite Jewish migrants in the Xth century. However, Karaims were not included under anti-Jewish legislation while they lived under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a position which Catherine the Great also adopted towards them after they were incorporated into her Empire. Whatever the truth about their origin may be, the majority of East European Karaims themselves regard themselves as Karai-Tatar in origin related to the Keraits rather than Karaites. The religion of the East European Karaims is syncretic in character incorporating some ideas from both Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism, as well as Christian, Islamic and pagan elements. For more information see Karaims (ethnic group).

It does not seem to me that there is a need to go into any more detail than that. Wikipedia should not be used as a podium to evangelise Jews by spreading misinformation from non-peer reviewed sources. Any thoughts from users other than those involved in promoting the confusion? Kaz 08:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC) May I just add that the 16:04, 2 October 2012 edit is my edit, I just forgot to log in. 16:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This territory is off for lies and forgeries
Here the story is still recorded with all the elements it needs to be judged correctly in an impartial historical perspective. Here you are not going to be allowed to continue this campaign of historical falsifications, lies, and forgeries. You have established somewhere else, for the time being, that your fringe sect does not belong to Karaism. Your concerted campaing of religious lies and falsifications do not belong in Wikipedia at all, and they will be eventually purged. But here you beware. Nothing here is going to be changed without proper discussion first. No one reacted to your previous posts here, but now you have crossed all lines. warshytalk 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Unreferenced POV Original Research

 * Nice Straw man Ad hominem attack there Mr Missionary. Tell me which of the requests for citation which you are trying to remove is a forgery of lies? How is my removal of dead links from your self-published website (which you are trying to re-insert) a campaign of historical falsifications? Kaz 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a boldface liar. You are changing stable (not good by any means, but definitely stable and a very good basis for true historical inquiry) content and replacing it with lies and forgeries, without citing any reliable sources. The lies and forgeries that you have so far fed the English WP in the page that refers to your fringe, non-notable religious-ethnic sect, making a big thing out of a couple hundred people allegedly belonging to some kind of invented, impossible, oxymoronic "Islamic Mosaism" are up for exposure. You lie through your teeth saying the complete content change you made twice are a request for sources. And you reverted it twice already saying you are "not" starting an edit war. You have crossed all lines now and I am reporting you to the appropriate forums. warshytalk 18:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We will see who exactly is a bold-faced liar. Wikipedia is not a place to post Unsourced Unreferenced POV Original Research to be as you put it "a very good basis for true historical inquiry". You continue to build your Straw man Ad hominem, but I repeat my questions:

"Tell me which of the requests for citation which you are trying to remove is a forgery of lies? How is my removal of dead links from your self-published website (which you are trying to re-insert) a campaign of historical falsifications? Kaz 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)"

Kaz 19:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

External links issues, again
Issue of EL has come up again in recent edits. I have reduced the ELs down, again, to make them further in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines on External Links.

In truth, all the current links violate the Wikipedia guidelines, although the Faith Strengthened link is probably to closest to being in full compliance. I have kept that link as well as the organization links even though the organization links fail EL guidelines. There is an exception that could have applied to the organization links which would have made them pass the guidelines (ie, being an official website of the topic), however, this exception is only applicable if it is the official website of the topic mentioned (ie, the website of the one-and-only governing body of the topic, or the person who is the topic). Since Karaite Judaism is not a cult, and does not have an official body dictating what to believe and who is a member (such as the Catholic Church, The Latter-Day Saints church, or the Church of Scientology), Karaite Judaism does not have an "Official Site". The organization EL are the next best thing, but that is not a loophole in the WP guidelines (so, basically, I'm ignoring strict compliance with the guidelines, here). Most of the links that were removed fall into what WP considers the "personal website" category, although they also violated other criteria.

The UKJ website would also be frowned upon by the guidelines because it is primarily (overwhelmingly) in Hebrew. I have added the Hebrew link icon, as guided by the WP guidelines, and changed the link destination to point to the one main page that is in English on the website (it is basically an English homepage for the site, although the rest of the site is in Hebrew). However, if the UKJ website changes its content management system, that link may become a 404, and will need to be updated.

A non-WP comment (although, could be WP-related indirectly) to Melech b.Y, if you are reading this, I would suggest that the WAK buy a domain name — using a Google Sites address does not help the WAK in looking "official" on the web (domains are only 10 $/year from GoDaddy, I would even be willing to host the WAK's site on my servers if Google doesn't provide DNS/domain-pointing to their Sites customers pages). Also, the WAK site may violate bias guidelines for external links (ie, the repeated strongly-worded monologues against UKJ, WKM, and KJU; although, this is an subjective assessment). Also, apologies for cutting your KI site's external link. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

50 thousand??!
The article mentions that there are about 50 thousand karaites around today but only gives one source. Is this enough for such an important bit of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.87.230 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would depend on whether or not there is a credible reason to believe that the source is wrong. Do you have a source that is as good or better that gives a different number? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well actually if you look at this article by the author of a book on the subject http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Ancient_and_Medieval_History/632-1650/Islamic_World/Karaites.shtml then it seems that someone with some authority says that there are only around 7 thousand. Also if you look at their own website http://www.karaite-korner.org/fact_sheet.shtml you can see that they say they have 25 thousand in Israel and only another 5 thousand in other countries.--72.38.87.230 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If nobody has a problem with it I want to change the wording at the end of the 1st section to say that today "estimates are between 25 thousand to as many as 50 thousand" with the sources?--72.38.87.230 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable change to me, and you don't have to ask permission. Go for it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do thanks.--72.38.87.230 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

rabbinic beliefs exalted over Torah?
"...in the view of Karaites, many traditions and customs are kept that are in contradiction with those expressed in the Torah," in reference to the Talmud and the writings of the Rabbis. No citation or example is given. An example would be helpful. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In case of contradiction, the written law takes precedence over the oral law. See, for example, Eduyot 4:11; also, secondary sources:, . Anecdotally, I've heard a Chasid saying that mitzvot derabanan are to be taken as more authoritative because the Talmud is more strict (or "chamur" חָמוּר); that confusion of his must have arisen from the Rabbinic ruling on cases of doubt (or "safek" סָפֵק). Someone else, particularly a Karaite, may disagree, and I would be happy to read the alternative view. Cheers! 213.109.230.96 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian Empire Karaites
Thank you for providing such an interesting and succinct background in this section but what are the reliable sources for this? I have found that the Karaite Jews in Crimea are in close association with the Moetzet Hakhamim of Universal Karaite Judaism under Moshe Firrouz.

My main question is why does the article say:
 * "Not all European Karaites accepted the Szapszalian doctrines. Some Hakhamim and a small part of the general Karaite population still preserved their Jewish heritage, but most[citation needed] dared not oppose Szapszal openly due to his official standing vis-à-vis the Soviet government"

Because from the links I provided  google translate at least seems to indicate that the Yevpatoria community in Crimea are just a localized branch of Karaite Jews struggling to restore themselves following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I read that it was Mordechai Sultansky not Avraham Firkovich who is first mentioned descent from the 10 tribes. Is it time to revise this section? YuHuw (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been concerned recently that there appears to be an attempt in other parts of wikipedia to blur the distinction between clear Karaite Jews and certain other so-called "Karaites" in Eastern Europe who appear to be more Turanist. I have been trying hard to stop sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe from blurring this distinction. I think this section if cleaned up properly might help undermine the efforts of such POV warriors. YuHuw (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also are there any sources detailing a breakdown of the population?
 * Some 30–50,000 are thought to reside in the 21st century in Israel, with smaller communities in Turkey, Europe and the United States.(Kershner 2013) Another estimate holds that, of the 50,000 world-wide, more than 40,000 descend from those who made aliyah from Egypt and Iraq to Israel.(Freeman 2007)

Any idea whether or not these figures include the Karaite Jews of Crimea? And is there any idea anywhere on the precise population and location of those "Karaylar-Karaites" (as Nehemiah Gordon termed them) in Eastern Europe who deny Jewish origins? YuHuw (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there is a clear difference between these legitimate Karaite Jews (Karaims or Ha-Yehudim Ha-Qara'im) and the ones referenced by Nehemiah Gordon (Karaylar or Qaraylar?) who certainly seem to be much more Christian. [User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Crimean Karaies (Karaylar or Qaraylar) are not homogenious .They have several views about their identity.Some of them see themselves as Turkic tribe that beleive to  Karaimism(defining it as separate from Judaism religion). Lithuanian Karaim in XX century  also added one Cristian pray to their liturgy that not dedicated to Jesus but to Father-God (like Jews to Avinu Malkeinu),But no one of them are not Christians except converted to Christianity (mainly in emigration at 20 century) . Karaite Judaism indeed recognize  Jesus as prophit but not of Karaits.New year/XMAS celebration is not religious.Many American Jews  also have  "Hanuka Tree" in their houses.Some non religious Jews in Israel also do that Неполканов (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Неполканов so I would like to clarify a few things from your post:
 * 1) You are now calling them Karaies and Karaylar or Qaraylar instead of Karaites.
 * Nothing new -please see the page about Crimean Karaites

 * 2) You are now claiming that some Crimean Karaites see themselves as a Turkic tribe Qarailar.YuHuw (talk)
 * You distort what written as usual. They called themselves Qarailar or Karailar(it is Karaim translation from Hebrew to Turkic),There is no such tribe Qarailar,Part of them look themselves as adherents of Turkic Tribes of Khazaria. Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) You are distinguishing Lithuanian Karaim from the Crimean KaraitesYuHuw (talk)
 * As I explained and you can see in the article Crimean Karaites Karaim of Lithuania define themselve as Crimean Karaites (see the article again please) ,Actually there are three dialects of Karaim Language. So there are some differences but not in their religion. It is identical to Karaite Judaism except the Turk(Karaim) language of liturgy that was introduced in 1930's Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) You are claiming that the Avinu prayer of Jesus is used by Lithuanian KaraimYuHuw (talk)
 * Yes,They do it mainly to distunguish themselves from Rabanites and to fawn the authorites. They have big history of such fawns. Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) You claimed "Karaite Judaism indeed recognize Jesus as prophit but not of Karaits."YuHuw (talk).
 * Please look at 10 principes of Karaite Judaism : one of them Got sent prophits other than Moshe but their strength is less than Moshe's.Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) They celebrate XMAS but not in a religious way.YuHuw (talk)
 * Exactly as American Jews.Look at Hanukkah bush .Som eof them it because they are living in Christian surounding that do that. They see themselves as ethnic and not religious group.Most of them are Atheists Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to claim Buddha is also a Karaite prophet as well? YuHuw (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not Karaite prophet.Karaite Judaism adherents recofgnised him as One God prophet of Buddists,(See 10 principles above)  I suggest you to keep your sarkasm till yout learning good the subject before you non-consensual edits i  the filed that you are not familoiar too much. Неполканов (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I used the spelling Qarailar because when I was doing my background research on you I saw you had used it here by the way I could have said Qarays which is the word which appears in the Crimean Karaites article or I could have said Qaraylar which also appears there and here of course. Sadly you avoided answering my question.
 * Anyway, the way you define "Karaimism" makes it look like a completely different religion from Karaite Judaism.
 * You mentioned that use the Avinu prayer of Jesus (which appears as prayer number 122 in this prayerbook written by the leader of the Crimean community in Yevpatoria) Is only used by the Lithuanian Karaim. But obviously you are wrong about that. But maybe you have a precise source to back up your claim that it was "introduced in the 1930s?" YuHuw (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Karaites in North-Eastern Europe: The Karaite Community of Troki between the Two World Wars by M, Kizilov where written that this pray was introdused by Shymon Firkowitz in 1935
 * Regarding your question about the Eupatorian book. You miss the point again due to bad knowledge of the sources language.In the Eupatorian book you mentioned you missed the  note "Можно добавить еще "  before "Kipchak version of the Pater Noster".Translation of the note to English is   you may add..This book was printed during the revival of Karaite religious life in Crimea tha was totally abandonded during 70 years of Soviet russification and atheism The book is based Lithuanian sources that developed national and religious life  in liberal Lithuania, where all traditional Hebrew prayers were translated to Karaim Language in 1930's.In soviet Lithuania local government allowed to keep Karaim tradition.  Regarding this Cristian pray the  Eupatorian author understands that this pray it is not integral part of traditional  Karaite liturgy. It is a reason of  this note. Неполканов (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I would like to thank Неполканов for his recent attempts to add some sort of context to this controversial section. YuHuw (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically what you are saying User:Неполканов is that according to all published sources posted here in this discussion as a result of a a trend which started among Lithuanian Karaims, the religion of the Crimean Karaims evolved in at least one significantly different way away from all other Karaite Jews in the world during the 20th century. YuHuw (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am explaining you again and again and you do not understand that there is no any significant difference between religion of Crimean Karaites in Lithuania and Crimea and Karaite Judaism.All is the same,except 2 shallow differences in the ritual : one pray (that does not intended Jesus but to Jewish Avinu ) and the Turkic liturgy language instead of Hebrew . Some modern branches of Rabinnic Judaism  abandoned Hebrew language in liturgy by the same way . After Christians abandoned Latin prays they still remaining to be Christians.The Shapshal's influence of Nestorian Christianity taken place by his opinion   at Early Middle Ages affected all Karaite Judaism and not related to religious reforms of assimilated Crimean Karaites in Lithuanua  Неполканов (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Christian Missionaries slowly changing hegemony of Karaites on Wikipedia
This is all typical Christian Missionary tactics to slowly introduce Jesus into Judaism. Anyone who uses a prayer of Jesus is obviously his follower. Isn't that fairly obvious to everyone? Because of that, the so-called Russian "Karaites" who use the prayer of Jesus can not be considered Jews. These "Subbotniks" are not circumcised and they are not Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.129.210 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is all a big misunderstanding. There are a type of Subbotnik Christian who use the prayer of Jesus alongside the Karaite Jewish Siddur. They have long been called Karaites by missionaries even though they are not Karaites. Seraya Shapshal is responsible for trying to fuse the Subbotnik Christians and the Karaims together and this caused Tuvia Babovich to move to Cairo where he maintained a pure form of Crimean Karaite Judaism which has today grown into Universal Karaite Judaism. Thus the Lithuanian Karaims were clearly very close to this sect in the early 20th century. The Prayer of Jesus found its way into the Siddur of the the modern Crimean Karaites for the same reasons. Thus the so-called "Karaites" of East Europe who are called Karaims and should very clearly be distinguished from other Karaite Jews whose tradition comes from Tuvia Babovich's group of original (now extinct) Crimean Karaite Jews who did not include the prayer of Jesus into their Siddur. The Exodus of Tuvia Babovich to Cairo marks the death of traditional Crimean Karaite Judaism in Eastern Europe and there is no need to mention here in this article anything about the Karaites of Eastern Europe after him who basically became indistinguishable from Subbotniks as a result of Seraya Shapshal's influence. YuHuw (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karaite Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024115547/http://www.archipelag.ru/ru_mir/religio/statistics/said/statistics-imp/ to http://www.archipelag.ru/ru_mir/religio/statistics/said/statistics-imp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819065046/http://karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf to http://karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_4520_PLK_HTML.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011151023/http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103393.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103393.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karaite Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808040134/http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5765/tazria65/mikdash.htm to http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5765/tazria65/mikdash.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327222714/http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/religion/karaites-who-are-they-and-where-do-they-live to http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/religion/karaites-who-are-they-and-where-do-they-live
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040709224450/http://faithstrengthened.org/ to http://faithstrengthened.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karaite Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225161545/http://www2.mswia.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=61&id=37 to http://www2.mswia.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=61&id=37

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

World War II
I mention this with some trepidation, but István Deák says this in his book "Europe on Trial":
 * Even practicing Jews of the so-called Karaite sect were allowed to serve in the Waffen SS after Himmler had been persuaded by a Jewish rabbi that the Karaites were racially Turkish and not Semitic.

I haven't found a further citation for this, so perhaps he is in error. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This adds a little: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=324814#p324814 Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The Russian government in the Nineteenth Century in a series of steps ended up categorising the Crimean and Eastern European Karaites as non-Jews. (See Karaite Separatism in Nineteenth-Century Russia, by Philip E Miller.) The German government of 1933-45 accepted this.--  Toddy1 (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks Toddy1. Deák's book is an interesting study of the forces leading various WWII ethnic/national/religious groups either to collaborate or resist - or, sometimes, both. Thomas Peardew (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Countries with "significant populations"
While citations have been given, for the number of adherents and their locations, I'm not sure that 2 people (or really anything under ~500) counts as a "significant population". In my view, it's an excessive amount of detail. Not only are such small populations not really noteworthy of mention in an encyclopedia, the fact that such specific and small numbers are mentioned leaves the article open for having to be constantly monitored, fact-checked, and edited as individuals move, die, convert, etc. Trumblej1986 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, you should delete those. Jayjg (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. But, just in case someone wants the sources I removed, I'm appending them here.

-Trumblej1986 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * region5 = 🇵🇱 Poland
 * pop5 = 346
 * ref5 =
 * region6 = 🇱🇹 Lithuania
 * pop6 = 241–310
 * ref6 =
 * region7 = 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan
 * pop7 = 231
 * ref7 =
 * region8 = 🇷🇺 Russia
 * pop8 = 205
 * ref8 =
 * region9 = 🇧🇾 Belarus
 * pop9 = 20
 * ref9 =
 * region10 = 🇱🇻 Latvia
 * pop10 = 4
 * ref10 =
 * region11 = 🇹🇯 Tajikistan
 * pop11 = 2
 * ref11 =

Karaites in Egypt in the 13th century - historiographical source suggestion
,

If that original research anecdote based on a 16th century rabbinical (responsa), not historiographical source, is to stay, I would recommend you look at the following reliable historiographical source, to see if it mentions anything about the Ramba"m's relationship to the Karaites, according to the Radba"z:

 * - Goldman, Israel M., The Life and Times of Rabbi David ibn Abi Zimra: A Social, Economic and Cultural Study of Jewish Life in the Ottoman Empire in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries as Reflected in the Responsa of the RDB"Z, New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1970.

Since this seems to be one of your favorite primary sources about ancient and medieval Jewish history, it is time you start getting acquainted with modern reliable historiographical sources, about this particular rabbinical figure. As it stands, that sub-section is just an anecdote based on oirginal research. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our job here, as editors, is to expand knowledge. We add to articles wherever the addition can assist others in better understanding any given subject. This is my first edit on the Karaites, although there is much more to say about them. Why do you call a simple citation or quote taken from a 16th-century author about the Karaites a violation of Original Research? Perhaps you have misunderstood when there is actually a violation of "original research." Furthermore, the citation is not even a "Primary Source," but a "Secondary Source" which speaks about an event that happened in the days of a 13th-century Rabbi. Still, even if it were a Primary Source, we are occasionally permitted to cite Primary Sources when used carefully. If you have any questions about the source, you may wish to refer your concerns to WP:RfC. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's see. You created a whole new sub-section in the History section called "Karaites in Egypt in the 13th Century" based on a single rabbinic (mind you, this is an article about Karaites, and you are using a source written by an opponent of the 'denomination') responsum from the 16th century. OK. Your sub-section opens as follows: What is your source for such a statement? If you have any historiographical reliable sources that could support such a statement, please bring them forward. I would be very interested in seeing these sources and what they say. But then you continue: What date was this "one day"? How is this date ascertained? And all this weird story, not more than a mere anecdote, really, in historical terms, to close with the following quote about the Nagid: What does this mean? That they did not need to be converted because they were already "orthodox Jews" according to halachah? That because they supposedly circumcised their sons on the eighth day they did not even needed to be immersed in a mikvah in order to be considered "clean" Jews? All these would be interesting facts for a footnote, maybe, in a paragraph about historical periods in which the two 'denominations' may have had friendly and close relations with each other, as opposed to other historical periods when the relations got to be quite hostile. No more than that. But to create a whole historical sub-section between the "Golden Age" (supposedly ending around 1100 CE) and the 19th century in the Russian Empire, which is the subject of the next historical sub-section, based on this single rabbinic responsum from the 16th century? I don't believe such a sub-section is warranted as it stands, and based on the single non-historiographical source it refers to now. Unless you can provide some answers to all the questions above, I intend to remove this rather meager in historical substance sub-section. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 03:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - Egypt had long been a bastion for Karaites and their teachings...
 * - ...in one day in Egypt...
 * - ...[he] "was not reluctant to receive them."

 * warshy, shalom. The source is terse and it does not mention any date, but only places the event in the time of Rabbi Abraham ben Maimonides. He writes explicitly that they "in one day" all returned to rabbinic Judaism, and he adds that Rabbi Abraham ben Maimonides "was not reluctant to receive them," meaning to say that he took the position of his father Maimonides who ruled that whenever a Karaite returns to Judaism, there is no need for him to undergo a conversion, but we simply receive him (see Responsa of Maimonides, responsum # 351 and Maimonides' Mishne Torah, Hil. Mamrim 3:2-3, where Maimonides writes: "... but the children of these people who are in error, and their offspring whose fathers had led them astray and were born [in such a state], whether the Karaites who were raised on such an opinion, lo! he is as a child that was held captive among them and was raised that way, and [therefore] is not motivated to uphold the ways of the mitzvot, since he is like one that has been constrained against his will. [...], such as those whom we said still maintain the ways of their Karaite fathers who have erred. Therefore, it is fitting to bring them back to repentance, and to draw them back with conciliatory words, until they have returned to the full-force of the Torah" END QUOTE ). As for Egypt "being a bastion" for Karaites, although there were other places as well, I will provide a source. The Hebrew article here, item # 8, by Dr. Menachem Zucker, says that they were principally found in Babylonia and Egypt throughout all times, but I can find a better source, I'm sure. If others here agree that the addition is inappropriate, I see no problems with removing it. Until then, there is no need to remove it, as it adds a certain scope and dimension to this article. Perhaps though it can be slightly reworded. In my view, it is important to note how that, both, Maimonides and his son, Rabbi Abraham (rabbinic stalwarts), saw the Karaite movement and what, precisely, they had to say about it. Again, if you strongly feel that this addition is inappropriate where it is currently, perhaps we can agree to have it placed in a different section, or perhaps even ask the opinion of a broader Wikipedia audience through a RfC. I'm all for a consensus here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing: For those who do not have access to Maimonides' Questions & Responsa, or who may not read Hebrew, the gist of the aforementioned responsum revolves around a Karaite woman whose husband thought she was legally divorced by him, by virtue of her signing a waiver that she forfeits the monies her husband vowed to give her after dissolving their marriage. Maimonides, in his responsum, makes it clear that Karaite weddings are valid under Jewish law and halacha, but their divorce procedures are invalid under Jewish law and halacha, until the husband writes his wife a written ğeṭ (bill of divorce) and gives it to her, in accordance with rabbinic law.Davidbena (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me take this opportunity to wish you a Shana Tova (Happy New Year).Davidbena (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shalom Davidbena. Thank you for your answers and for all the improvements you have done so far to the main article since. Welcome to the editing of the Karaite Judaism area on WP. Thank you for the improvements you've added to the Jacob Qirquisani article also. As for the sub-section here, I think you provided some answers to my questions and you added a source about Karaites in Egypt, which is good. The sub-section is still not quite a full sub-section about Karaism in Egypt, but it is OK for the time being. Shana Tova to you too, thank you, Shalom. warshy (¥¥) 16:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"ruse"
Karaites in the Russian Empire: "The leaders, hearing that, devised a ruse by which they could be freed of the oppressive laws"  The word 'ruse' is not neutral, and does not appear in the linked Jewish Encyclopedia article.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:5C78:5149:5F14:2542 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not required to quote exactly from sources. It is quite OK to paraphrase, which is what the sentence above does.  Toddy1 (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Hermitc Qabbalah in note b - should it be to Kabbalah?
While reading this article I noticed that note b, reading "This oral law employs the methods of remez (implication or clue), drash (interpretation, exegesis), and sod (deep, hidden meaning, identified with the Qabbalah)." links to the Hermetic Qabbalah page. Given that this note is in reference to Rabbinic Judaism, I wondered if linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah would be more correct? Please disregard if I'm incorrect. I do not know very much about the subject, which is why I was reading this article (to learn) and this note stood out to me as a possible error.

NonyaSerdo (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching it and for the note. These are just WP previously setup redirects. For some reason Qabbalah goes to the Hermetic type. I just changed the spelling to "Kabbalah" and now the link links correctly to the main Kabbalah page, as it should. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources for the unsourced addition
,

Even if the Torah said what you say it is saying (which I, for one, do not think it says for a moment), it would be just a "primary document" in this case. A statement of opinion like the one you are trying to add would need a secondary, reliable, preferably academic source stating it, or verifying it. But, of course, such a source does not exist, so you wouldn't be able to produce it. I am giving you a chance to produce a source for your statement here, before it is removed once again as a simple, unsourced personal opinion. Thank you, warshy (¥¥)

Dubious-discuss: "Torah" or the entire Tanakh?
citation KARAITES AND KARAISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com states: "follow the Bible to the exclusion of rabbinical traditions and laws." This 'BIble' - referring to exclusively the Torah sections or entire Tanakh? The wikipedia says 'Torah'. Unsolicited claim FatalSubjectivities (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 * It's the entire TaNaKh. Lasker's Karaism and Yosef' Yaron's Introduction to Karaite Judaism cover this. 47.196.236.103 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Jacobs as a source
Reexamine his claim that Karaites were a significant part of the Jewish population. What numbers does he give? Where did he get them? I think examination will show his source, if any, is as tendentious and self-aggrandizing as the claim without numbers. The very existence of Prophets shows interpretation of Torah, and the article itself shows that Karaites _interpret_ Torah instead of living by its literal meaning. What's more, "literal meaning" is the same false claim as "literal translation". Jacobs has to be very naive not to understand that. 100.15.117.34 (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Karaite Judaism


text:
Adagio for Strings

Adagio for Strings is a work by Samuel Barber, arguably his best known, arranged for string orchestra from the second movement of his String Quartet, Op. 11.

It is considered by many to be one of the greatest classical pieces ever written.

Barber finished the arrangement in 1936, the same year that he wrote the quartet. It was performed for the first time on November 5, 1938, by Arturo Toscanini conducting the NBC Symphony Orchestra in a radio broadcast from NBC Studio 8H. Toscanini also conducted the piece on his South American tour with the NBC Symphony in 1940.

Its reception has generally been positive, with Alexander J. Morin writing that Adagio for Strings is "full of pathos and cathartic passion" and that it "rarely leaves a dry eye". The music is the setting for Barber's 1967 choral arrangement of Agnus Dei. Adagio for Strings has been featured in many TV and movie soundtracks.

History
Barber's Adagio for Strings was originally the second movement of his String Quartet, Op. 11, composed in 1936 while he was spending a summer in Europe with Gian Carlo Menotti, an Italian composer and Barber's partner since their student years at the Curtis Institute of Music. Barber was inspired by Virgil's didactic poem Georgics. In the quartet, the Adagio follows a violently contrasting first movement (Molto allegro e appassionato) and is succeeded by a third movement that opens with a brief reprise of the music from the first movement (marked Molto allegro (come prima) – Presto).

In January 1938, Barber sent an orchestrated version of the Adagio for Strings to Arturo Toscanini. The conductor returned the score without comment, which annoyed Barber. Toscanini sent word through Menotti that he was planning to perform the piece and had returned it simply because he had already memorized it. It was reported that Toscanini did not look at the music again until the day before the premiere. On November 5, 1938, a selected audience was invited to Studio 8H in Rockefeller Center to watch Toscanini conduct the first performance; it was broadcast on radio and also recorded. Initially, the critical reception was mixed. The New York Times' Olin Downes praised the piece, but he was reproached by other critics who claimed that he overrated it.

Toscanini conducted Adagio for Strings in South America and Europe, the first performances of the work on both continents. Over April 16–19, 1942, the piece had public performances by the Philadelphia Orchestra conducted by Eugene Ormandy at Carnegie Hall. Like the original 1938 performance, these were broadcast on radio and recorded.

Composition
Adagio for Strings begins softly with a B♭ played by the first violins.

The lower strings come in two beats after the violins, which, as Johanna Keller from The New York Times put it, creates "an uneasy, shifting suspension as the melody begins a stepwise motion, like the hesitant climbing of stairs". NPR Music said that "with a tense melodic line and taut harmonies, the composition is considered by many to be the most popular of all 20th-century orchestral works." Thomas Larson remarked that the piece "evokes a deep sadness in those who hear it". Many recordings of the piece have a duration of about eight minutes. According to music theorist Matthew BaileyShea, the Adagio "features a deliberately archaic sound, with Renaissance-like polyphony and simple tertian harmonies" underlying a "chant-like melody". The work is in "the key of B♭ minor (with some modal inflections)".

The Adagio is an example of arch form and builds on a melody that first ascends and then descends in stepwise fashion. Barber subtly manipulates the pulse throughout the work by varying the primary time signature with isolated measures of, , and. After four climactic chords and a long pause, the piece presents the opening theme again and fades away on an unresolved dominant chord.

Music critic Olin Downes wrote that the piece is very simple at climaxes but reasoned that the simple chords create significance for the piece. Downes went on to say: "That is because we have here honest music, by an honest musician, not striving for pretentious effect, not behaving as a writer would who, having a clear, short, popular word handy for his purpose, got the dictionary and fished out a long one."

Critical reception
Alexander J. Morin, author of Classical Music: The Listener's Companion (2001), said that the piece was "full of pathos and cathartic passion" and that it "rarely leaves a dry eye". Reviewing the premiere performance in 1938, Olin Downes noted that with the piece, Barber "achieved something as perfect in mass and detail as his craftsmanship permits".

In an edition of A Conductor's Analysis of Selected Works, John William Mueller devoted over 20 pages to Adagio for Strings. Wayne Clifford Wentzel, author of Samuel Barber: A Research and Information Guide (Composer Resource Manuals), said that it was a piece usually selected for a closing act because it was moderately famous. Roy Brewer, writer for AllMusic, said that it was one of the most recognizable pieces of American concert music. The musicologist Bill McGlaughlin compares its role in American music to the role that Edward Elgar's "Nimrod" holds for the British.

As part of a musical retrospective in 2000, NPR named Adagio for Strings one of the 100 most important American musical works of the 20th century, calling it "standard repertoire for today's orchestras, and Barber's best-known work".

In 2004, listeners of the BBC Radio's Today program voted Adagio for Strings the "saddest classical" work ever, ahead of "Dido's Lament" from Dido and Aeneas by Henry Purcell, the Adagietto from Gustav Mahler's 5th symphony, Metamorphosen by Richard Strauss, and Gloomy Sunday as sung by Billie Holiday.

Arrangements
G. Schirmer has published several alternate arrangements for Adagio for Strings. They include:

 * Solo organ (1949) – William Strickland
 * Clarinet choir (1964) – Lucien Cailliet
 * Woodwind band (1967) – John O'Reilly
 * Agnus Dei (1967) – Samuel Barber – Latin text setting of "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God) for chorus with optional organ or piano accompaniment
 * Chorus with strings (2021) – Jonathan Manners, also setting the Agnus Dei text. Performed on the 20th anniversary of September 11 attacks (9/11) at The Last Night of the Proms 2021, London UK, in memory of those lost. The new arrangement was performed 20 years after the original Adagio for Strings was performed at the 2001 Last Night to honour the memory of the victims of 9/11, conducted by Leonard Slatkin.

Strickland, while assistant organist at St Bartholomew's Church in New York, had been impressed by Toscanini's recording of the work and had submitted his own arrangement for organ to Schirmers. After he made contact with Barber at a musical soirée in 1939, he learned that his transcription had received a lukewarm response from the composer. Strickland, subsequently appointed wartime director of music at the Army's Fort Myer in Virginia, became a champion of Barber's new compositions. He continued to correspond with the composer.

In 1945 Barber wrote to Strickland, expressing his dissatisfaction with previously proposed organ arrangements; he encouraged Strickland to discuss and prepare his own version for publication.

"Schirmers have had several organ arrangements submitted of my Adagio for Strings and many inquiries as to whether it exists for organ. I have always turned them down, as, although I know little about the organ, I am sure your arrangement would be best. Have you got the one you did before, if not, would you be willing to make it anew? If so, will you ever be in N.Y. on leave, so I could discuss it with you and hear it? If it is done at all, I should like it done as well as possible, and this by you. They would pay you a flat fee for the arrangement, although I don't suppose it will be very much. However, that is their affair. Let me know what you think about it."

Strickland, having kept the piece, sent his organ arrangement to G. Schirmer. The company published it in 1949.

Notable usage
The recording of the world premiere in 1938, with Arturo Toscanini conducting the NBC Symphony Orchestra, was selected in 2005 for permanent preservation in the National Recording Registry at the United States Library of Congress. Since the 1938 recording, the Adagio for Strings has frequently been heard throughout the world, particularly in times of mourning. It was one of the few American pieces to be played in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Barber voiced misgivings with the piece's ubiquity, saying in a 1978 interview, "They always play that piece. I wish they'd play some of my other pieces."

Notable invocations or performances of the piece include:
 * Broadcast over radio at the announcement of Franklin D. Roosevelt's death (1945).
 * Played at the funeral of Albert Einstein (1955).
 * Performed by the National Symphony Orchestra in a national radio broadcast following the funeral of assassinated President John F. Kennedy (1963). The piece was one of Kennedy's favorites.
 * Conducted by Leonard Bernstein at four consecutive New York Philharmonic concerts in memory of Samuel Barber shortly after Barber's death (1981).
 * Played at the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco (1982).
 * Performed at Last Night of the Proms in 2001 at the Royal Albert Hall to honor the victims of the September 11 attacks.
 * Played during the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Vancouver.
 * Played as the final song on the Peter, Paul and Mary compilation album Peter Paul and Mary, With Symphony Orchestra. Mary Travers had requested that Adagio for Strings be played at her memorial service.
 * Played at the state funeral of Canadian Jack Layton, the New Democratic Party Leader (2011).
 * Played in Trafalgar Square, on January 9, 2015, by an ensemble of 150 string players led by Thomas Gould of the Aurora Orchestra following the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo.
 * Played by the Brussels Philharmonic on March 25, 2016, in front of the Brussels Stock Exchange following the 2016 Brussels bombings earlier that week.
 * Played in Central Park in New York City on June 15, 2016, for the victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting.
 * Played at the televised memorial in Manchester, England on May 23, 2017, for the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing.
 * Played at the digital European Concert in the Berliner Philharmonie by the Berlin Philharmonic under Kirill Petrenko on May 1, 2020, for Coronavirus victims.
 * Performed at Last Night of the Proms in 2021 at the Royal Albert Hall on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, in a new arrangement for chorus and strings.
 * A vocal choir arrangement plays during the introduction cinematic of the video game Homeworld.

Adagio for Strings can also be heard on many film and television soundtracks, including The Elephant Man (1980), Platoon (1986), and Lorenzo's Oil (1992). More comedic or lighthearted uses of it have appeared in the film Amélie (2001) and on episodes of the sitcoms Seinfeld, The Simpsons, American Dad!, and South Park''.

Adaptations
The group eRa included Adagio for Strings in their 2009 album Classics.

The work is popular in the electronic dance music genre, notably in trance. Artists, including DJs who have covered it include William Orbit, Armin van Buuren, and Tiësto (eponymously titled single).

title: Adagio for Strings


text:
Arch form

In music, arch form is a sectional structure for a piece of music based on repetition, in reverse order, of all or most musical sections such that the overall form is symmetric, most often around a central movement. The sections need not be repeated verbatim but must at least share thematic material.

It creates interest through interplay among "memory, variation, and progression". Though the form appears to be static and to deny progress, the pairs of movements create an "undirectional process" with the center, and the form "actually engenders specific expressive possibilities that would otherwise be unavailable for the work as a whole".

Béla Bartók is noted for his use of arch form, e.g., in his fourth and fifth string quartets, Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, second piano concerto, and, to a lesser extent, in his second violin concerto. Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings and Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 8 in C minor also use arch form.

The most popular arch-form structure is ABCBA.

title: Arch form


text:
User:Alchow

As the last time I edited this page was before my graduation from Mount Holyoke College back in 2004, I suspect I cannot claim that I have made any sort of significant (or insignificant) contribution to the welfare of Wikipedia. This user page is fun to edit, though, and if I were any geekier, I might use this page the way I used my .plan. (No, please do not finger me.)

title: User:Alchow


text:
User:WPWoodJr

Bill Wood

title: User:WPWoodJr