Talk:Khazars

Undue weight given to role of Judaism in this article

NPOV section states that:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Other religions including Shamanism, Christianity, and Islam also played important roles in Khazar history before and after some of the Khazar nobility embraced Judaism. The opening section fails to emphasize this aspect of Khazar history. Furthermore the parts about DNA evidence should not be in this article. This is an encyclopedic article about the Khazars. Perhaps a separate article dedicated to the Khazar role in Jewish history would be a good place to provide such information.

User:Nostradamus1 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article makes clear that other religions were practiced in Khazaria. The latest scholarship suggests that Judaism was widespread, and this is one of the things the Khazars were best known for. You have presented absolutely no justification for removing the DNA evidence section, as this is a major controversy surrounding this people. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Briangotts. This article seems pretty well-balanced already. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not well balanced yet. First I'd like to ask why the NPOV tags I placed were removed in less than a day? It clearly states that we should not do so. I did not expect you (Briangotts) to understand the undue weight matter I raised since you are probably the one who created it in the first place. I will put the NPOV tags back so that others can come and discuss this matter too. Second I placed referenced information that was deleted with a comment that they were "misleading". In what way? Are you questioning the credibility of the souce? I will quotee from another source. I do not thing the article in its current form gives this perspective:

The Khazar Turks who seized the Russian steppes in the 670s are best remembered because their ruling elite converted to Judaism a century later. Like many steppe peoples the Khazars were of mixed origins but their state endured longer than that of most. Even before Muslim Arabs appeared on their southern frontier the Khazars had allied themselves with Byzantium against Sassanian Iran and this traditional friendship continued after the Sassanians collapsed. The Arabs proved to be much more formidable neighbors and this clash forced the Khazars to move their Caucasus capital north to the mouth of the Volga. Originally shamanist, the Khazars almost converted to Islam following a shattered defeat by an Arab army which chased the Khazar Khagan right across the steppes into the forests of the north. Instead, however, the Khagan went back on his agreement and revived the Khazar alliance with Byzantium. A short time later the ruling elite converted to Judaism, though the number of converts remains a matter of heated debate. Others adopted Christianity or turned to Islam which most Khazars accepted after the collapse of their state in the early 11th century.

Mentioning that other religions were also practiced in Khazaria is not enough. It is how this information is presented that gives the balanced perspective. Khazars did not start as followers of Judaism and they did not end as followers of Judaism. The number of Khazars converting to Judaism is a debated matter. Therefore stating that "the Jewish religion became widespread among the population" is POV. Most sources state that only the elite converted and the article must point to this view that is the main stream view. Recent research or pet projects should stay out of this encyclopedia. Disputing minority views may be noted, though. This subject apparently is used by extremists on all sides and unfortunately the immediate victim is the subject itself. Such debates should to be taken elsewhere. This is also not a place for original research so mitochondrial DNA or whatever has to be left to researchers. This is an encyclopedia.User:Nostradamus1 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that we know precious little about the other religions practiced in Khazaria. All of the sources agree that Judaism was the major influence from at least the early ninth century through the mid tenth. It is true that the view among early Khazar researchers (Artamanov, Dunlop et al) was that the conversion that was limited to the elite, but the current consensus based on the last five decades of archeological investigation and textual analysis is that the conversion was far more widespread, and even extended briefly to allied nations such as the Alans. Nicolle's statement is of little import because he is a non-specialist dealing with the khazars very briefly in a work that itself deals briefly with the history of nomadic armies over the course of ten centuries. The works of Pletnyeva, Golden, Brook, Kovalev, and in particular the contributors to Peter B. Golden, et al., eds. The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium (Handbook of Oriental Studies/Handbuch Der Orientalistik). Brill: 2007, are more relevant and apropos. The DNA section is well-sourced and is not original research. It reports what the researchers themselves have stated. Moreover, you are being disingenuous when you claim that the debate about the extent of the conversion is ignored- in fact it has its own section in the article. This is the appropriate place for you to include well-sourced perspectives which highlight the disagreement among scholars- not your own personal feelings on the matter. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Label "Anti-Semite"

The label Anti-Semite is indiscriminately slapped on innumerable numbers of people by this article. The references are so broad as to be rendered meaningless. This usage is common to all articles involving Jews. Therefore, I think the label should be permanently banned from any use on any article dealing with Jews, for all time. This label should be treated exactly like the labels "asshole" "motherfucker" or "cocksucker." In other words, the label (anti-semite) should be erased, except when used as a criticism of itself. Furthermore, the people using the label should be treated in exactly the same way as someone who used profanity in reference to another person/group, except of course, in a criticism of doing so, as I've done in this comment. (Barkmoss 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

I absolutely disagree, if only because it's *not* a curse word like the foul words to which it is erroneously compared. The fact that some may disagree with how it has been used, or not like being called one, or even if people mis-use it - none of these mean that the word itself should be banned. I also disagree if only for the extreme terms being suggested for the proposed ban.FlaviaR (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further criticism of the label is that it is, in reality, a meaningless term. Palestinians are Semites too! People who blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis are usually Semites. People who are killed by the Israeli Military are generally Semites. If that doesn't prove to someone that the term is meaningless, then they either live in a coffee pot or their skull is made out of concrete; in essence, they are in denial. Barkmoss (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that people insisting that the majority of modern Ashkenazi are all Khazars and therefore are not entitled to live in Israel are anti-Semitites, especially since it has been disproven genetically. As well as the fact that nearly every anti-Semetic and neo-Nazi website denounces Askenazi Jews as "Khazars". As for the word "Semite" being applicable to Arabs as well as Jews, well, the English language rarely makes sense. The word "Cunt" was allegedly once a term of respect for wise women, it doesn't change the fact that its a vicious insult today. Arguing semantics is pointless. Oh, by the way Barkmoss, please sign your posts using for tildes instead of just typing your username and the date. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page. Asarelah (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See, the way you use the label is meaningless. You call someone that you don't like an "anti-Semite," because they question wether or not most Jews are actually Semitic/entirely Semitic. Remember, Al Franken, Donny Deutsch, Madonna, Whoopi and John Stewart are all supposed to be "Semitic peoples." THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE IT! So, it isn't surprising that lots of people question that by musing: all of their blood line must not be Semitic or otherwise they wouldn't look like Germans, French, Italians, Negroes, Slavs, etc. Apparently, the genetic research backs this up, because it implies that Jews are mixed. Furthermore, the genetic research apparently backs up the claim that Palestinians (among others) are also "Semitic peoples." You know, Ishmael was a son of Abraham too. So, the claim, that Semitic is exclusively Jewish and all Jews are exclusively Semitic appears to be bogus. However, it is Jews (partial Semites that kill other partial Semites) who are constantly screaming/whining: "ANTI-SEMITISM!" That's Nuts! Finally, your poor attention to grammar demonstrates, what appears to be, a lack of self-respect and respect for readers (which, by the way, is not surprising). Barkmoss (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The way *you react* to the word is not quite meaningless, but it is telling. You have shown, at the very least, that you have no idea what the word actually means. It means "Jew-hater" because that was precisely what it was coined to mean. And not by Jews. And as far as poor education goes, you have less than no right to be picking on anyone else's, because your description of Jews - both in lineage & actions - is atrocious (& if you really think "Whoopi Goldberg" is Jewish,then your knowledge base is even tinier than I suspected). FlaviaR (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O.k., o.k, one day Whoopi's a Jew, the next she ain't and then she is again! Pardon me for not keeping up with my "who's a Jew and who ain't" current events. In any case, you still got people like Sammy Davis Jr and all the rest. You gonna give me this, "who's a Jew" bologna; forget about it! The Old Testament followed paternal not maternal descent and it certainly would not have condoned abortion (little details that seem to have escaped your "great" Rabbi). On the other hand, Jews seem to have made a nation out of themselves despite all their contradictions. So, the who's a "Jew" debate only adds to the confusion that outsiders feel and the questions that naturally produces. Hence, calling that a bad name is inappropriate and erroneous; it's like calling the inquisitive mind of a child, "pure evil." Of course, that doesn't stop evil people from passing laws against and persecuting people they label as, "anti-Semites."

Using the term "Jew-Hater" instead of "anti-Semite" would at least be clearer. Although, given the current usage of the term, it would imply an irrationality that is unwarranted. In other words, strong disapproval of Jews in your/someone else's country, Jews doing something or Jews saying something, does not make you a raving homicidal lunatic, who wants to murder the entire global population of Jews. Barkmoss (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I call people who insist that the Ashkenazi are all Khazars anti-Semites because they insist that it is so despite the fact that is has been disproven by science. That is all that I stated, I never claimed that Arabs were not Semetic people, nor did I claim that Semetic is exclusively Jewish and that all Jews are exclusively Semetic. You are using a straw man arguement against my statement. Finally, your personal attacks on my grammar and your accusations of lack of self-respect and respect for my readers (and your comment that is "not suprising") constitute a personal attack, which is against the policy of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Asarelah (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Believing something that you don't, does not = wanting to kill the entire global population of Jews. So, calling others mean names is wrong; you shouldn't call people who say things that you think are wrong, bad names. Even a child would know that; it's immature and uncivilized. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Since you know the term is used so poorly, you should agree that it needs to be eliminated from the lexicon.

In regards to your grammar, you should use good spelling! Barkmoss (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic" does not necessarily equal wanting to kill the entire global population of Jews, it just means prejudice towards Jews which may or may not extend to desiring genocide. Frankly, I don't know what your point is here. Do you want the term “anti-Semitism” totally expunged from Wikipedia? Is that what’s upsetting you? If so, then I think you should forget about it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not rewrite the dictionary or eliminate words from the lexicon. Asarelah (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The incredibly/increasingly muddled arguments being thrown about now all seem to be culminating in wanting the word "anti-semite' to disappear from the English language itself. Since this is beyond the purview of Wikipedia, I think it's more than safe to just ignore the whole suggestion. FlaviaR (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cohanim DNA?

All mention regarding Cohanim DNA should be removed? as it is too specific to prove anything as Cohanim are a group and not representative of the general population. If Cohanim DNA is used as a yardstick then I point out that the Bantu Lemba tribe of South Africa has a higher percentage of their population able to trace direct decent to the Biblical Israelites (through Cohanim DNA) than the Sephardi and Ashkenazi combined. Does that make them more Jewish? I think not. All it proves is that they have a group descended from Cohanim the same as many other populations. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV problems

I've tried to clean this up but keep getting reverted by editors who have a natural bias. I got some support but it needs to be worked out here instead of with reverts having nothing in comments.
1: "is frequently cited to malign modern Jews as not actually being Israelites and/or to undermine Israeli claims to territory"
This language is unnecessarily inflammatory as it implies evil intent which is not always the case. This is not an article on Israel so it is not appropriate to single out this use of the theory in isolation.
2: "Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here:"
Is the bracketed phrase in the original quote? No? Then it shouldn't be in it.
3: "It is important to note that Khazarian DNA has not yet been used to compare Jewish genes with that of the Khazars."
This negates the entire DNA section which is no more than speculation and genetic studies on a small subgroup that is not indicative of the general population to give a conclusion to support a specific POV.
If you can argue the case for reverting any of these without compromising NPOV, please do. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the best solution to this debate is to move the entire thing to a page of its own, and include a brief summary and cross-reference here. Claims are made of connections between the Khazars and this or that modern ethnic group, but the evidence is apparently either inconclusive or absent. We can have a stable article on the Khazars without subjecting it to reversion wars. If the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory is given its own page, it will be clear that it is a theory, not an "established fact" (whatever 'that' means). If, then, someone else wants to pull together all the discussions about connections between the Khazars and some 'other' ethnic group, like one of those named in the present article, let them. I think it will all make for interesting reading. It should not be absent from Wikipedia entirely - just moved off this page. Any other thoughts, anyone? Cbdorsett (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with a separate page - it might serve to take some of the noise off this page - I do have to say that I think the move will be seen to more enshrine the theory as a fact, not the other way around. FlaviaR (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Genetics can always be moved back here when the issue is definately settled. Until then the subject is only worth a short summary here and is best left to an article of it's own detailing the current state of research. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to move the debate about Khazar-Ashkenazi theory into its own article. This article should focus on the Khazars not on any possible descendants. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. moving the "debate" (not really much of one, actually) to a separate article serves no purpose whatsoever. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed with Brian. Splitting this off would constitute both a content fork and a POV fork. Obviously against guidelines and completely pointless. According to any reliable source I've seen, this isn't a debate, it's a footnote, and it's not going to pass muster with the wider community. Call an RfC to examine the (reliable) sources if anyone really thinks that they're in contention. Daniel^C/_T+ 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Daniel is correct. Firstly, there really is no "debate". Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight there may be issues ascribing any validity to the alternate hypothesis. Forking it off to its own article would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and I fear the only purpose would be to "hide" well-cited, reliable, verifiable information that certain editors find discomfiting, which is against every core policy we have. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Briangotts, Daniel and Avi, the proposed new article would be a POV fork in violation of the NPOV policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Briangotts, Daniel, Avi, and 6SJ7. The proposed content fork and POV fork is a non-starter. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting moving the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory into its own article. The problem is only with a section for the genetic evidence as it is used here to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given. Forking does not apply as there have been no genetic studies that have reached a conclusion for the general population so it is innapropriate to have so much material (no matter gow well-cited, reliable and verifiable which no one disputes) included in this page. A short paragraph is far more appropriate. I remind Avi of WP:NPA. I have no personal bias as my editing history will show. I also can say "certain editors find this discomfiting, which is against every core policy we have". This is proven not by the reinstatement of the section but by the deletion of the well-cited, reliable and verifiable fact that Jewish and Kazar DNA (with the exception of a small subgroup) has not been compared yet when it was added to the section as a qualifier in preference to removing the section. A RFC for content relevance is pointless as it would be defeated by WP:COI so how do we resolve this? Wayne (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss, you claim you have "no personal bias as my editing history will show". Yet your edits indicating that Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 attacks,[1], were culpable in the Liberty Incident,[2], and that David Irving is a legitimate historian (see [3] among many edits), as well as your passionate defense of Ernst Zundel, insisting he was railroaded and had a legitimate refugee claim (see multiple statemente here, and your various edits to Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles indicate a confluence of interests that is unmistakable. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the ethical and historical absurdity of "testing" the legitimacy of ethnic lineage of a group through DNA testing, I'm fine with mentioning the assertion along with the overwhelming evidence against it on this page; but I would have to see a lot of material from remotely reliable sources to see how it could justify its own articles. Whether or not it's a POV fork is almost beside the point as long as there is so little substance behind it. I can't even imagine the ugliness that would ensue if various conflicting parties in the Middle East got into DNA pissing contest, so at a minimum we should treat this one with care and seriousness. --Leifern (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Leifern has it right. Acknowledge that there's a dispute, give each side fair due, but the idea of having a section about DNA testing is basically a non-starter; it's already quite clear that the theory is rubbish, no point in saying, "Though the theory has been confirmed as rubbish, there is still one test that has not been done to reconfirm its rubbishiness." We just don't write articles that way. IronDuke 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship problems

People should not be deleting entries in the discussion section unless they are abusive or libelous. You have no business deciding whose comments are read or not, or someone will start deleting yours as well. GuyInCT (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)