Talk:Khazars

Words close to Mongolian language

Have been reading about Khazars and its article just now and found many words that are identical in modern Mongolian language. Whether the original Khazar peoples were actually Mongolians or Turkic is up for debate, but list of similar words to Mongolian: - Irbis - close to "irves" (snow leopard) - Bulan - "corner" in Mongolian language - Zachariah - "zahirah" meaning "to govern" as in "zahiral" (boss/governor)

I'm not saying these are specifically Mongolian words. They could be Turkic words. I don't know Turkic words at all. Just some info. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Hunempire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hunempire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversion to Karaite Judaism

The line: "During the 8th century, the Khazar royalty and much of the aristocracy converted to a form of Karaite Judaism," is not accepted as anything other than speculation. There is debate over the size and scope of the conversion(s); the date(s) and the nature of the conversion(s). Avraham Firkovich is not regarded as a reputable source. Please edit to something along the lines of: "During the 8th century, the Khazar royalty, and perhaps much of the aristocracy, converted to Judaism," or I will. Thank you. LarG (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just a passerby here, so I hope I am not doing damage. I have made this paragraph more scholarly, but other parts of the article are still (at least) as disputable. Sasha (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Better! The Karaite movement is believed to date from the late Ninth Century {per Shapira, Dan D. Y.} LarG (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Antisemitism" in the section "Theory of Khazar Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews"

There are several references to "antisemitism" and "antizionism" in this article. In all cases, these are at best conjectural. In a few cases, their usage seems manipulative as if the author is attempting to undermine the opposing argument with a characterization of source racism as opposed to arguing the point objectively. That is, at best, trickery and falls short of proper analysis. Moreover, simply because more recent studies have shown otherwise, historical studies are not necessarily thereby null and void: they ought to be given equal consideration, not swept away (yet again) by characterizations of racism or antiquity. The use of the word "antisemitism" in reference to the Ashkenazi Jews is simply incorrect and unsuitable for a Wikipedia article: it has been shown through DNA studies that the Ashkenazi Jews are possibly not semites while the Palestinians most undoubtedly are. Also, the word "semite" refers to a language group, not a race, so to infer "antisemitism" relating only to the Ashkenazi Jews is simply false. Considering that it seems impossible to be racist against a language group, I believe this portion of the article has been grossly manipulated and should be given little merit as an objective analysis of the question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.109.80 (talk • contribs)

I'll try to keep this brief.

1. Wikipedia relies on the findings of reliable secondary sources. This article reproduces what such sources say about the Khazar theory and antisemitism.
2. Modern science and studies are inevitably considered more reliable than "historical" ones. Science moves on, new findings all the time, and new studies are aware of the contents of old ones, and take them into account.
3. For the interminable and rather idiotic argument about whether "antisemitism" is a misnomer, see Antisemitism#Etymology and usage. English is not a logical language; live with it.
4. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Ashkenazi Jews have adopted a Semitic language, Semitic religion, and pretty much every aspect of a Semitic culture, and typically meet rabbis' definitions of who is Jewish. While I'm not saying you have anything against them, the "they're not Semites because of their DNA" smacks a little too much of someone trying to pull their heritage out from under them (which is why the claim was advocated by antisemites, so they could dodge that label and still get to hate Jews). Also, more recent genetic studies, such as this, reach quite the opposite conclusion than you have.

And I see you admit that "semite" refers to a language group, so what does DNA matter then? You can't have it both ways. And the concept of race has as much a cultural aspect as a biological one, if not more.

As for racism, it can apply to a culture. The UN's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defined it as: the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Sociologists define it as a system of group privilege. Before the World Wars, it was actually common for white people to be racist against other white people based on which country their ancestors were from. To say that antisemites cannot be racist against a language group is misunderstanding and twisting about how the words "semite," "antisemite," and "racist" are used in the English language. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)