Talk:Khazars

Reconstruction

I did a significant reconstruction of this article trying to group relevant history, linguistics, religion and Khazar state issues. I think however the article is getting too big and we have a couple of topics we can easily split into separate articles. First of all, we may split an article on Khazarian Kingdom, as a political entity (there are 3-4 subsections for it already). Thoughts?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. The current status of this article is very poor. Prominent scholars are omitted, the main core of this article is based on views of controversial and fringe sources. There many questionable claims, huge portion of well sourced academic material was taken out. Claims based on views of this controversial sources are presented as historic facts. Mainstream opinion on core issues have been marginalized or removed. There are many additional problems as well. --Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a work page. Complaints should be specific, and not generic opinionizing.

(a)*The current state of this article is very poor.

And, of course, it was a brilliant example of wiki editing previously.

(b)*Prominent scholars are missing.

Name them.

(c)*The main core of this article is based on views of controversial and fringe sources.

(i.'main core' is a tautological reduplication. ii.' views of controversial and fringe sources': sources do not have 'views' - their authors have them=

This, again, is an assertion, ungrounded in any evidence

(d)*'huge portion of well sourced material was taken out'. I asked Greyshark, an editor I trust, to put whatever new material he had on this talk page, so we can discuss how to use it. The material is not 'huge' .

(e)*Claims based on views of this controversial sources are presented as historic facts'

Examples? No one has ever noted on this page any source I used as 'controversial'. In fact the RS criteria adopted are extremely strict.

(f) *'Mainstream opinion on core issues have been marginalized or removed'.

That is a stylistic complement or rhetorical version of (c), assertive and undocumented.

In other words, you are just complaining per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and adding support without having examined the many instances of problematical reediting in Greyshark's revision. Here's another example.

The text read:-

The Khazar state was the only Jewish state to rise between the Fall of the Second Temple (67-70 CE) and the establishment of Israel (1948),Oppenheim, p. 310.

Greyshark rewrote this, clearly without consulting the source, as follows:

The Khazar state was the only Jewish-dominated state to rise between the Fall of the Second Temple (67-70 CE) and the establishment of Israel (1948)

That is not what the source says. p.310 of Oppenheim reads:-

‘the medieval Jewish Khazar state was the only Jewish state in the world between the fall of the Second Temple in 67 A.D. and the formation of Israel in 1948.’

‘Jewish-dominated’ is furthermore a particularly ugly phrase, since to readers the words ‘Jewish-dominated’ suggests Protocols-of-Zion like innuendoes I, for one, find particularly distasteful. Greyshark didn't mean to imply that, of course.One must not revise or rewrite a text without closely examining the source for it, and the language, on which the previous editor drew. To do so is to rewrite a text according to preconceptions.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(a)It was at least much more objective and much less POV driven.

(b)*Prominent scholars are missing.Anita Shapira ( beside this claim which has nothing to do with Khazars although it is presented as such "Modern scholars generally see the conversion as a slow process through three stages, which accords with Richard Eaton's model of syncretic inclusion, gradual identification and, finally, displacement of the older tradition", Israel Barthal, Moshe Gil, Simon Sachma to name just some are out while Kostler and Sand are used as reference for historic claims. All of this Despite the fact that the first is unreliable and the second is highly controversial. Hebrew was placed as in first place of introduction although no Khazarian document in Hebrew language exist (there are numerous Arabic documents, byzantine documents and Persian documents. The Kievian letters was as shown by Erdal and others written by non Khazar Jews to the Jews of Kiev (who were as presented by Erdal likely not Khazar converts but Khazar Jews) Sources regarding Russian professors and archeologists who claimed that Khazars assimilated in neighboring people were taken out. Ibn Fadlan was as you used to say "cherry picked", his references regarding the scope of Islam in Khazaria were erased.Other Arab historians and there are about 15 of them who did not supported the Khazar-Jewish narrative were left out (See my edit based on Moshe Gil) some contemporary Arab historians who claimed that Khazars were predominantly non Jewish (see my edit of Moshe Gil) were left out. A claim made by Al Hajj replaced dozens of genetic studies. Moshe Gil analysis of contemporary Jewish literature was also erased. The criticism of Shlom Sand narrative was also left out. The serious doubts about the authenticity of Khazarian correspondence was left out see History of the Byzantine Jews: History of the Byzantine Jews: A Microcosmos in the Thousand Year Empire By Elli Kohen P:253, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and ... By Devin DeWeese , Even the source (although not WP:RS for this) which you used many times question its authenticity: The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled

By Jits van Straten P:8 so on....

e)The claim that Khazaria was Jewish country is not supported by numerous sources although it is presented as a fact.--Tritomex (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By claiming "the Khazar conversion to Judaism, though unusual, was not unique" you are implying that all Khazars converted to Judaism which is original research. Wexler cant be a source for historic claims regarding Iranian Jews which is btw not supported by any historian.--Tritomex (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, just on e), how does that wording imply "all Khazars"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence " the Khazar conversion to Judaism, though unusual, was not unique" define the Khazars as people, not their nobility and royalty. However most of historic sources do support only the conversion of aristocratic class which is omitted form the text.--Tritomex (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is what professor Michael Berkowitz from University College London wrrote on this issue in his criticism of Sand. [1] "The shining example of a counter-narrative, which Sand sees as decisive, is the 'Khazar' theory, asserting that European Jewry was largely the consequence of a mass conversion in the 8th century. As much as some aspects of this episode have been substantiated, the scale of conversion suggested by its proponents is highly questionable" --Tritomex (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is evident (a) that you have not read the page (b) that you are unfamiliar with the sources used to document that page, i.e. you know nothing of the scholarship on the Khazars. (c) that you cite lots of names without knowing who they are (d) that you do not understand how wikipedia works because you are proposing we stuff the Khazar page with details from the page on Shlomo Sand and The Invention of the Jewish People. I call that POV-blob pushing from page to page just to ensure readers will get what you want them to see on every page, instead of trusting them to follow the ample links on this page to the articles where the views critics of one or two people mentioned here are mentioned.

• 'Kostler (=Koestler) and Sand are used as reference for historic claims'.

Untrue. Koestler is used for citations of historians (Hugo von Kutschera ), or translations of original sources (Pol(y)ak), or for a citation of what Salo Wittmayer Baron wrote about the Khazars, with confirmatory citations from specialists.Shlomo Sand is cited here not for information on the Khazars, but for either Pol(i)ak's book on the Khazars, and the citation is backed by a second source, or for the status of his book as one of those arguing the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory, which is a minor historical topic that has nothing to do with the core of the page.

Anita Shapira, Israel Barthal (=Bartal), Moshe Gil, Simon Sachma (!!!=Schama),Michael Berkowitz, have nothing to do with Khazar studies, and are all, bar one (Moshe Gil, who fails per the obscure journal he wrote his polemic in, RS, as often noted), modern historians of Jewry with no competence in Khazar studies. They criticized Sand. Their opinions on Sand's book are available on the relevant Sand pages. This is a silly move per WP:Undue. None of these historians has the slightest technical background in Khazar studies. The page is about Khazars, it is not about Shlomo Sand's views on the Khazars. He is not used here to document the Khazars. He is sparsely used for Pol(y)ak's views in his untranslated Hebrew book on the Khazars.

You repeatedly argued elsewhere that Jits van Straten is not RS. You like one opinion in his book, so you now cite him here. This is called 'the instrumental' use of sources to prove a point, and is unacceptable.

• 'The serious doubts about the authenticity of Khazarian correspondence was left out.' The Khazarian correspondence is now regarded as 'authentic'. When you say 'Kievan letters' (plural) you are so out of touch that you bundle up into one correspondence set two distinct documents (the Kievan letter) and the Schechter letter.
• 'By claiming "the Khazar conversion to Judaism, though unusual, was not unique" you are implying..'

For God's sake, read the bloody text. It is not what I write or imply. It is what the source I am paraphrasing says (Golden)

• De Weese.

The controversy over the authenticity (a very complex term) is an historical one over the details of who and where such letters were composed, discrepancies between versions, whether interpolations exist etc. De Weese writes:'In any case what is important for our concerns is these accounts' preservation, however abbreviated or altered, of originally oral narratives that in all probability originated among those directly affected by the Khazar adoption of Judaism.' p.305

In short, de Weese alludes to the controversy, but regards it as irrelevant because whatever the hypotheses about the originals' composition, the material originated among Khazar Jews, or Jewish converts, and that is all, from his perspective, that counts ('much of the debate loes significance'). We have several pages where the details concerning the various hypotheses can be expounded. By all means feel free to add the details there.

• 'Sources regarding Russian professors and archeologists who claimed that Khazars assimilated in neighboring people were taken out.

I took out a sentence asserting something like this, unsourced and ungrammatical.

• 'Wexler cant be a source for historic claims regarding Iranian Jews which is btw not supported by any historian.'

What are you talking about? This?'A tradition of the Iranian Judeo-Tats claims that their ancestors were responsible for the Khazar conversion.[108]'. Unless you specify which quote from Wexler you are challenging, I cannot reply.

• 'The Kievian letters was as shown by Erdal and others written by non Khazar Jews to the Jews of Kiev (who were as presented by Erdal likely not Khazar converts but Khazar Jews)'

If you are having trouble reading Erdal, get back me. Erdal 'showed' no such thing. He made an hypothesis that the letter 'may have been sent from a place where the language spoken was not Khazar' and that the signatories were not Khazar converts, but Jews, perhaps Slavs, who adopted non-Jewish names. This is Erdal's view. It is, like so much else, an hypothesis, not a proof of anything. There is very little in the article about Kiev because the scholarly literature on Khazars there is all hypothetical, inference, guessing, and the article cannot lose its way in such recondite academic controversies.

Hebrew was placed as in first place of introduction although no Khazarian document in Hebrew language exist

You don't know what you are talking about, or rather, you are taking as 'proven' the old view that the Khazar correspondence was faked or inauthentic. Google 'the "Khazar Correspondence" of Hasdai Ibn Shaprut and King Joseph.' Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have no time right now to comment on all issues I will reflect just on Nishidani claim regarding the Kievian letters (this document was used to justify the placing of Hebrew in articles lead)

On page 96 Erdal explains that the Kievan Letter does not bear the names of Khazar converts to Judaism, but the name of Jews who adopted local names. Referring to Torpusman comprehensive work in Khazar linguistics Erdal states "In his opinion the Non Jewish names of this document are likely to be Slavic and not Turkic; "This would again make Khazars vanish from the latter." Orjol 1997 has indeed shown that one of the names, if not two is Slavic" Finally Golden/Erdal states "The conclusion would be that the document signatories (or their fathers mentioned by their patronyms) who have non Jewish names would not be Khazars who converted to Judasism but Jews who adopted non Jewish names." The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, Part 8, Volume 17 P:96--Tritomex (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read Erdal. Your problem here, as all over wikipedia, is that you ignore details (you cited Kohen, who mispells 'than' as then, cite him for 'phantasmagory', not understanding that this is an invented gallicism, inappropriate to wikipedia's narrative voice, that in English would be phantasmagoria', and showcase one theory among dozens over the centuries in order to suggest it is a fanciful and inauthentic fiction in the view of 'some scholars'. Fourth, Kohen gets stuff wrong, as in writing Boxdorf for Buxtorf, and is not a Khazar scholar.

I noted that you refer to Kievan letters as if the Correspondence consisted of that: it does not. You used Erdal's hypothesis as if it were a proof, which it is not. You don't understand what a scholar means when he uses 'may' 'appear' or 'would' in English, which are syntactic markers not of proof but of probability, or possibility. All this you ignored and distorted. Now you cite the very page I used to respond to you, as if I hadn't read it. What's the point? You're wasting my time, and I suggest, your own, by talking past the problems those who read your edits raise. Now I'll have to fix the mess you introduced.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Do anyone knows who is Samuel Oppenheim and what are his credentials regarding Khazar history?? --Tritomex (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Professor Emeritus of History at California State University, Stanislaus, specializing on Russian and modern European History. Got his doctorate at Harvard 1972. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bit-by-bit

@Nishidani, the info about Ashkenazi Jewish genetics and their alleged connections or non-connections to ethnic Khazars belongs to theories. It is custom to put a genetic section on the people themselves (Khazars), but since studies on the latter do not exist, putting a section on alleged genetic links with some modern peoples (and the Jews are not the only ones argued for Khazar heritage), one falls into misleading the reader. The Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jewish origins is a theory and it belongs to a proper section.GreyShark (dibra) 13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have three sections here, after the overall history.

• (a)Ashkenazi-Khazar theories
• (b)Use in anti-Semitic polemics
• (c)Genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews (and the Khazars)

(a) Is a chronological account of the A-K theory in serious historical studies.

(b) Is a survey, on historical lines, of the use of the theory by antisemites.

(c) deals what the science of genetics says about the Ashkenazi-Khazar connection

On the face of it, there might seem to be a natural link between the historical and the scientific. Analytically, they are, as I have often said in here, in conflict. Most of the scientific studies get their historical facts wrong, or use poor or outdated sources. It's not something they show any expertise in Ostrer et al, frequently use ideological memes or historical clichés to confirm their interpretations; Elhaik gets some key historical data wrong, etc. Historians don't pretend to use genetics to resolve their mysteries. But more congruently, I don't think we need make an exception of the Khazars here, as you apparently wish to do. History and genetics in articles with peoples who are mentioned in this article or exist(ed) in that area are dealt with in distinct sections, and are not confused (see below). This is wise, seeing that genetics deals with a wholly different order than historiography, and is still a new science with wildly contrasting results. They are two distinct orders of discourse, and historical theories remain forever interpretative, whereas scientific 'theories' assume a process of incremental verification. In short, they have a different epistemologial status. Some sources say that theories like the Khazar-Ashkenazi connection cannot be proved or disproved by genetics (a point made in note 273: El-Haj 2012, pp. 1–2,28–9,120–123, 133:'if the genome does not prove Sand wrong, neither can it prove him right. It is the wrong kind of evidence and the wrong style of reasoning for the task at hand.'(p.28):'They (researchers) will never be able to prove descent from Khazars: there are no "verification" samples.'(p.133).'

• See Ashkenazi Jews:
• See Sephardi Jews
• See Turkish people
• See Palestinians
• See Egyptians
• See Druze:
• See Bulgarians Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please bring a single example on "genetics" section in article about extinct peoples (i couldn't find any example).GreyShark (dibra) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No.You said 'It is custom to put a genetic section on the people themselves (Khazars).' I complied by examples. Now you add 'extinct'. This is WP:Wikilawyering. Of course we have Xiaohe people(xiǎohé:小河): Xiōngnú people (匈奴) etc.etc. But this is hairsplitting, and I am bald.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Large scale 'copyediting'

Greyshark. I apologize in anticipation, but I found your numerous rearrangements, modications and 'copy-editing' extremely confusing. Could you please use the talk page when suggesting radical reorganization. It took several months to try and get this into shape, and I found numerous problems in your adjustment. I've only time to mention a few. In general, they show little awareness of the state of the debate in the sources.

• (1) 'Kingdom' for 'Steppe empire'. Whatever you think, the phrase is in Golden and several other sources. This is written, word for word, in line with the cited sources, and arbitrary adjustments to the language without attention to those sources is problematical.

• (2)'Some research suggests that the core of Ashkenazi Jewry emerged from a Khazarian Jewish diaspora,' Wrong use of ‘research’.
• though this is generally treated with scepticism by those who claim there is a direct genetic link to people of Biblical era Israel.

You are linking two different areas of scholarship. Geneticists who have no knowledge of history, and historians who have no knowledge of genetics. Great pains have been made to keep these two spheres separate, since the two fields are not evidently in dialogue. The geneticists's papers make farcical use of historical sources. The historians so far rarely use genetics. You blurred this

• (3) By upping the religious conversion section above the Byzantine –Arab buffer section you ruined the lead reflection of the chronological narrative of the page.

• (4) Disintegration of the Khazar state with the Russian conquest is considered a drive for assimilation of Khazar tribes.

This is completely garbled English and essentially meaningless. (the 'Russian conquest' for 'Rus' conquest' is particularly inept, and if I have deciphered the intended meaning, the scond part is a weird statement. And 'is considered' (by whom).

• In 965, as the Qağanate was struggling against the victorious campaign of the Rus' prince Sviatislav, the Islamic historian Ibn al-Athîr mentions that Khazaria, attacked by the Oğuz, sought help from Khwarezm, but their appeal was rejected because they were regarded as 'infidals'. etc

This violates the lead necessity for synthesis by selecting out of many data one item, and privileging it against the many other details. One source cannot be showcased. Since the whole of Khazar studies is a matter of variegated 'theories' on sparse evidence only simply cannot assume any one version is correct.

It would take me an hour to analyse the effect on narrative structure of the West. I would appreciate it if you could reintroduce the material you had here, so we can discuss how best to use it. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. When the page was completely reorganized in March, a detailed proposal of the structure and process was posted here and discussed before it was executed. I believe this is how any further radical reorganization should proceed as well. As sensitive as the page has been to major edit wars and heated discussions in the talk section, a wholesale restructure without discussion is inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Nishidani, considering the poor situation of this edit-war torn article, i would say that your revert was merely an overkill of accurate reconstruction attempt in line with general articles on nations and ethnic groups.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose a reconstruction of the page and an outline of how it would be laid out here, then it could be discussed. This worked quite well in the spring, improving the page from a dramatically worse state than it is in now. Substantial rewriting of the page took place over the summer, so perhaps the structure should be readdressed. But the place to do so is here, given the many contested issues present. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Laszlo is correct. Nishidani has done a lot of work to address exactly the problematic state of this article, and he went through the steps, showing no signs of trying to walk over people or own the article. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so let's continue that way. After all the problems of the article have much to do with hasty editors who jump in during instability. I thank Greyshark for getting involved but please work step by step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong. My impression is that this page is under general attack. Apart from the extremely time-consuming and rather witless argufying Tritomex engages in, twice User:Greyshark has endeavoured to make substantive section changes without troubling to discuss them, as the consensus above advised him to do. See here and here. I think this discourteous, to say the least. I asked him the first time round to discuss his proposals, got no answer, and only a further revert.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Attack is a very subjective feeling. One might say that you are attacking the article as well.GreyShark (dibra) 18:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the words 'attack' and 'defense' are antonymns. One cannot attack what one defends. I am not defending my article, in my view. I am defending a collaborative attempt to bring a wretched article up to GA standards, in a version that has been stable for some months, and whose factual adhesion to the comprehensive academic sources used to compile it no one has yet seriously, as opposed to mockingly, challenged. As Wexler said, Khazars have been strenuously exploited for polemics, and I have assiduously avoided ruining the article by adopting any side in this partisan POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt to reintroduce genetic arguments, as if resolutive, into the history of the theory section.

• news on Ashkenazi jews origins added)
• This is NEW info. Not to be denied, but included. It appears to largely resolve the Khazak-Ashkenazi issue. Edit maybe, but don't delete
• The information, regarding Costa and Richards's genetic conclusion, is already on the page, in the appropriate section, so this addition only replicates what is already referenced on the page. See Note 274

The consensus on this page was that confusing, as Greyshark's edit did, the genetic arguments and the history of the theory survey would be structurally destabilizing. So the IP has ignored the consensus and gone ahead to reintroduce a variant of Greyshark's edit. So, it is to be reverted, in my view. If you wish to explore the details of the dozen genetic papers which, over the last decade, have addressed, with varying results, this issue, make a fork, and we can give the complete detailed picture of the debate there. I'll help out, and add a page link to the genetics section here so readers can pursue it there. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a genuine misunderstanding every time a genetics article comes out, that there is a new consensus. This is understandable given the way science publishing and promotion works today, but in fact what we have in genetics is a constant alternation of new articles which claim to have proven either one thing or the opposite thing. In fact it is very hard to prove anything finally in this sort of subject (ancient ancestry based on testing modern people). You have to consider for example that all these studies use modern populations as proxies, and it is not clear whether the Caucasus or Arabia are closer to the genetic situation of Israel in past millenia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fascinating field, indeed, but as you say, the results are in constant flux because the methodologies are producing different results. Why I separate the historical rundown from the genetics papers is partly for the reason you give, and partly because there is as yet no intelligible interface between historical research, and genetics. If I may hazard an opinion, the nature of the Judaic populations in the Caucasus is extremely complex, with Iranian, Iraqi, Armenian, Georgian elements, to name but a few, attested, with no clear picture whether they represent conversions or endogamous 'Israelitic' remnants or communities. Historians learn to work with these ambiguities and complexities. Geneticists seem to show only a slight familiarity with them. Biblical Israel itself, before Judaism as we know it, was a very heterogeneous whirlpool of populations, Canaanite/Phoenician/Egyptian/Arab/Greek/Eteocretic/Hittite/Hurrian/Ivri tribes etc. The old Greek paradigm of a unified people broke down 40 years ago, its orientalizing variegatedness acknowledged. This still hasn't quite hit public awareness, which is what most review articles of the genetic 'conclusions' reflects. In any case, keeping the two discourses separate is also necessary because that edit tended to imply:'Historians have taken a pro-/contra-position on the theory. Science has decided.' It's not that simple, since the science makes many unhistorical assumptions about populations.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex

The genetics section can be forked to give all the pros and cons. As written it is highly synthetic.

• What you have done here is to break the neutral synthesis of positions by highlighting Feldman et al. in order to have the page, via those opinions, dismiss the hypothesis. This viollates both the criteria of the page, and WP:NPOV.
• You have cited, without caring for coherent formatting an op-ed by Jon Entine 'Israeli Researcher Challenges Jewish DNA links to Israel, Calls Those Who Disagree ‘Nazi sympathizers’,’ Forbes 16 May 2013

That is a dubious source, in the first place, which breaks the consistently strict standards for RS employed in this article.

It also is a terribly poor article. Look at the following excerpts:-

• The young Jewish researcher challenged the so-called “Rhineland hypothesis”—the broadly accepted genetic and historic evidence that about 80 percent of Jewish Ashkenazi males trace their ancestry to a core population of approximately 20,000 Eastern European Jews who originated in the Middle East.

There is no historic or genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi 20,000 core European Jews 'originated in the Middle East'. In fact, as phrased, (carelessly) it suggests 20,000 EEJ's emigrated to Europe from the Middle East. Entine clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

• He’s just wrong,” said Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, a leading researcher in Jewish genetics. “If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin,” he said. He added that Elhaik’s paper “is sort of a one-off.”

Well that is not a fact. It is a rough scholarly consensus now under challenge (Oct 8 2013)

• Discover’s Razib Khan did a textured critique in his Gene Expression blog, noting the study’s historical fuzziness and its selective use of data to come up with what seems like a pre-cooked conclusion. As Razib writes, it’s hardly surprising that we would find a small but sizable Khazarian contribution to the “Jewish gene pool”. In fact the male line of my own family traces to the Caucuses (sic), suggesting I’m one of the 20 percent or so of Jews whose lineage traces to converted royal Khazarians. But that view is widely acknowledged by Ostrer, Hammer, Feldman, Michael Thomas and every major researcher in this area—as summarized in my book.

I.e. against your selective use of Feldman's put-down, the same article's editor says 20% of Jews traces to converted royal Khazarians, that Ostrer, Hammer, Feldman himself etc, concur in this view.

So what you did was to introduce a poor source, by a science writer who gets all of his facts and history upside down, in order to quote Feldman against Elhaik, while ignoring that the writer then endorses one version of the Khazar theory. For this and other reasons, again, you will have to be reverted on this. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I might add that the page has been designed to compress controversies like this, because it already has problems of length. The option available for those who wish to develop the genetic theories is to fork out a page dealing precisely with all of this material in greater detail. Much that I might have easily included, like

And findings by genetic researchers of significant Near Eastern ancestry among Ashkenazic Jews put to rest the notion that this population originated with or is predominantly descended from the Khazars.Be that as it may, there is one odd and tantalizing feature of Ashkenazic Jewish Y chromosomes that may lead us back to Khazaria. Like kohanim, the Levites, the larger tribe of priestly helpers, pass on their identity from father to son. Yet unlike the kohanim, the Y chromosomes of Levites do not show homogeneity across geographically dispersed populations. There is no Y chromosome link that unites Ashkenazic and Sephardic Levites. Among the Ashkenazic Levites, however, there is a particularly common Y chromosome type that is not often found in other Jewish groups. But it is found among people who now live where the Khazars once did. While the overall genetic makeup of Ashkenazic Jews provides little support for Koestler’s theory, the Ashkenazic Y chromosome may be testimony to the entry of some of the Khazar population into Ashkenazic Jewry. Could it be that members of the Khazar elite, after converting to Judaism, assumed the identity of Levites?'David B. Goldstein In Jewish Genetic History, the Known Unknowns in The Forward, August 28, 2009.

Was left out of this article precisely to ensure that the historical side would not be overwhelmed by edit-warring over such details. Feel free to open up such a page. But partisan details cherrypicked to challenge a theory one dislikes only sets a precedent for people who might disagree with you to join in with their favorite tidbits in defence of the same order of theories, and such an expansion is wholly inappropriate for the way the article has been designed.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani

• I did not cited Entine scientific views because he is not geneticist. I cited two leading genetic experts whose views and comments are unarguably attributed to them, unarguably per WP:NPOV related to the subject and to the context and are unarguably relevant as you added Elhaik papers in 3 different places of this article. That means that the criticism of experts has to be added too . I did not cited Rhazib Khan as he was removed many times by you, although I have nothing against adding him to the article-

Your comments are like WP:OWN , of this article deciding what can go in, what goes out, what should be shorten..etc. You are claiming that my edition is coming from "tertiary source" Maybe it does, however contrary to your sourcing of Polyak and other historians through controversial and unreliable book of Arthur Koestler and tertiary sources you have used from another controversial scholar Shlomo Sand (who has been accused by Israel Barthal of falsifying exactly those same sources), no one challenges the attribution of this views to Prof Behar and Prof Feldman. The claimof Prof Feldman is not presented as universal fact but it is properly attributed. --Tritomex (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point. You have interfered with a neutral succinct summary of the scholarly positions by selectively introducing one critical expansion of one aspect of one geneticist. You have not understood that summary style here does not allow for such unilateral expansions, and people like yourself who wish to do this unbalance the neutrality by showcasing a single viewpoint. You didn't even have the courtesy to format that source. The source citing Feldman is so poorly written it is nonsensical and contradicts itself. If you allow that as a source for Feldman, the rest of the article (by a science writer) could be justifiably harvested for claims diametrically opposed to Feldman's, creating chaos. It is an open invitation to counter the introduced POV with balancing POVs, which I refuse to do. Feldman's point is challengeable. Why him and not any one or several of dozens of pro and contra references to the scholarly debate? Because he says what you wish to believe. That is not our remit. I have no WP:OWN interests here. I do have a desire to ensure that the established quality of the article is not incrementally collapsed by thoughtless POV one-point drum-beating.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to understand the point I am making, let me show you what your edit would generate in NPOV terms. You wrote:

However, Geneticist Michael Hammer from the University of Arizona called Elhaik work "an unrealistic premise" while Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, claimed it "wrong". Regarding the origin of Ashkenazi Jews, Feldman wrrote "If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin," (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers

I.e. you showcased two scholars's critical reactions. Per NPOV one would then have to balance this by, for example, adding:

(Hammer, who also co-wrote the first paper that showed modern-day Kohanim are descended from a single male ancestor, calls Elhaik and other Khazarian Hypothesis proponents “outlier folks… who have a minority view that’s not supported scientifically. I think the arguments they make are pretty weak and stretching what we know.”Feldman, director of Stanford’s Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, echoes Hammer. “If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin,” he said. He added that Elhaik’s paper “is sort of a one-off.” Elhaik’s statistical analysis would not pass muster with most contemporary scholars, Feldman said: “He appears to be applying the statistics in a way that gives him different results from what everybody else has obtained from essentially similar data.”)

'Elhaik . . shrugs off such criticism. “That’s a circular argument,” he said of the notion that Jews’ and Armenians’ genetic similarities stem from common ancestors in the Middle East and not from Khazaria, the area where the Armenians live. If you believe that, he says, then other non-Jewish populations, such as Georgian, that are genetically similar to Armenians should be considered genetically related to Jews, too, “and so on and so forth.” Dan Graur, Elhaik’s doctoral supervisor at U.H. and a member of the editorial board of the journal that published his paper, calls his former student “very ambitious, very independent. That’s what I like.” Graur, a Romanian-born Jew who served on the faculty of Tel Aviv University for 22 years before moving 10 years ago to the Houston school, said Elhaik “writes more provocatively than may be needed, but it’s his style.” Graur calls Elhaik’s conclusion that Ashkenazi Jews originated to the east of Germany “a very honest estimate.”' Rita Rubin 'Jews a Race' Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,' at The Forward, May 7, 2013

I don't add comments like Dan Graur's, you shouldn't add Hammer and Feldman. This article is not fundamentally about genetics, or theories on the Khazars and Jews, which are a minor element of a very interesting historical kingdom. If you wish to develop the brief section we have, write a page fork 'Genetics and the Khazar-Ashkenazim theory'. There is abundant room for the expansion you are wedging in here, on such a page, exploiting all of the sources and further literature, which we only refer in passing to here.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You are distorting sources and adding unrelated claims to this article. It was you who took out one genetic study whose results apparently pleased you and inserted it above all other genetic studies, without any secondary reflection in 5 articles and at least 3 sections of this article. In such case per WP:NPOV you cant censor scientific criticism from highly specialized experts. The view of Elhaik’s doctoral supervisor about Elhaik work at the university has nothing to do with the criticism of his genetic analysis which you try to censor. Behar and Feldman are well known genetic experts in the field of population genetics, especially Jewish population genetics. It was you who first argued that the views of geneticists should not be added to the articles if they are not written in per-reviewed journals, later when you found views which were in line with your point of view, you have edited them in the Genetic Studies on Jews, contrary to your previously self proclaimed rule. Here however, you are trying to censor views which are critical to your POV. Your claim that this article is not about Khazar-Ashkenazim theory, it wasn't until you added dozens of references from controversial, unreliable and unverifiable sources, replacing huge sections of well written article. Finally, I will wait for non involved editors opinion before reverting the WP:OWN you have established here again. Its not upon you individually to determine how long each sections should be, what can go in and what goes out and what you will allow in to the article and what you will forbid. Also, stop censoring my editions on talk page as it is against Wikipedia rule.Tritomex (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, let third parties comment. Nothing of what you assert above is, as far as I understand it, true. You think I am POV pushing. Where? I rewrote the article to reduce the raging debate over the Ashkenazi and Khazars to a brief section, where the number of sources I adduce against that connection far exceeds the number of sources that argue for that connection. Why? Because that is the way scholarship sees it. You have consistently throughout numerous articles pushed a distinct and recognizable theory as 'the truth', and, as recently, at Ophel inscription, you were quite prepared to write an article privileging the absurd fantasies of a creationist with no ranking in semitic philology over the work of one of the foremost scholars of north-Semitic languages, in flagrant defiance of WP:Fringe.

I haven't the foggiest idea of the truth in this regard. To me, all we have is the hypotheses of historians, and geneticists, and they disagree as often as not. Therefore the only thing a responsible editor can do is cite the various opinions according to the weight that is their due. In this case, the consensus of both scholarship and genetics is against the connection, and that is how I have represented the issue. If you can show me any specific passage where I betray a preference for the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory, indicate it. Do not make vague accusations. I happen to have a long-standing research interest in Central Asia history, and in returning to the subject after decades, got far more interested in the historical intricacies of the Khazars, than in the current controversies over the possible Khazar diaspora, which is so thoroughly speculative that it should not distract readers from the Khazars themselves. It is a polemical episode, not the centre piece of the article.

As to WP:OWN, when someone spends several months reading a large amount of academic literature, and sums it up as best as she can, with an eye to encyclopedic neutrality, she is certainly not infallible, but works before peers, who can correct, rewrite, challenge and elaborate according to their lights, and in concord with the rules. I am rather confident that I managed to set a high bar for quality here. I also trust in the collective wisdom of those editors who have accompanied me through those months, to make independent calls on the merits, defects of the page as it stands. Your accusation that this was a well-written article is vagrant. Your suggestion that I have altered it by adducing 'dozens of references from controversial, unreliable and unverifiable sources' is an outstanding case of malicious representation. If you believe that, name one source on the page that fits the description, and ask third parties to underwrite the assertion.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I might add that adding the dispute template which says the whole article's factual accuracy is disputed, when in fact at the moment Tritomex is challenging my removal of one quote from a poor source in a small section, strikes me as simply a provocation. That kind of tag is justified when an editor can make a substantive list on the talk page of issues he or she thinks are inaccurate. No such list has been given. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I already listed dozens of specific reasons why the factual accuracy, neutrality and selection of sources do not reflect scholarly opinion on this subject and I cant repeat myself. Everything is in archives of this talk page. Generally and in short;

a) Most of leading Jewish historian opinion on this subject was left out. Almost nothing can be found from Dubin, Dunlop, Ben Sasson, Barthal, Shapira, Lewis, Sachma, Gil, just to name some

Nonsense. Almost all of those scholars are not Khazar specialists ('on this subject'). Firstly you aren't familiar with the scholars (Sachma =Simon Schama, Barthal = Israel Bartal). Moshe Gil has one article on this, written in his late 80s in an obscure journal, and is, on this WP:Fringe). Douglas Morton Dunlop is mentioned 18 times on the page; Bernard Lewis is mentioned twice, on the area where he is competent; you'd better specify who 'Dubin' is; Anita Shapira, Israel Bartal, and Simon Schama are mentioned by you only because they reviewed Shlomo Sand. This is not the Shlomo Sand page.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

b) Marginal controversial and therefore unreliable sources (Sand, Wexler) are used as sources for different historic claims, totally unreliable authors like Arthur Koestler are used as well

Shlomo Sand has a minor place in the article 181 (used for the date of the Mongol invasion, with additional source); 190 (used for Petachiah of Ratisbon, uncontroversial);237 (used for the date of Pol(y)ak's book, with further source); 239 (used for citing Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur); 242 (used to note the cliché that Koestler popularized the Khazar theory); 249 (used to note that he published his book on the subject). His book, like it or not, dealt with the Khazars and all the literature mentions it, and he has not been used for anything regarding the details of Khazar history. Paul Wexler is one of the foremost experts on the history of yiddish, whose origins are linked by him to the Khazar theories, and his books have never been challenged for their summaries of vast amounts of scholarship on ethnic and linguistic issues in the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe. He is used to refer to that scholarship when it bears on Khazar issues. He is RS for Peter Golden,the doyen of Khazar studies, but not for you. Koestler wrote a book on the subject. This is duly noted and he is used with extreme parsimony: 66 (tribute tribe numbers, uncontroversial); 102 (quoting J. B. Bury, together with Golden); 148 (citation from the full text of the letter which coincides with Leviant, and is thus independently confirmed); 206 (for a citation of Salo Wittmayer Baron;226 for the date of Hugo von Kutschera's Die Chasaren; historische Studie(totally uncontroversial, except that two distinct dates 1909 and 1910 are variously given in sources).Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

c) Jewish historians are sourced through Sand, despite the fact that prominent Jewish historians accused Sand of misinterpreting them.

Answered above. No evidence is supplied that Sand misquoted Salon Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur. Further, the precision of the quotes has been independently confirmed, see note 239.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

d) Special selections of sources were made, for example Ibn Fadlan references about the scope of Islam was wiped out from the article, while his claims bout Judaism were overemphasized.

You misunderstand historical method. Ibn Fadlan was often quoted as a primary source and undue weight given to his view. His opinion is alluded to via secondary sources like Golden.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

e) Ten of Arab historians who claimed that Khazars were not Jews were left out.

You are copying, while misrepresenting, Moshe Gil's fringethesis. Khazar specialists ignore it. You have already mentioned this point above.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

f) Unverifiable claims, regarding Khazar-Jewish relationship like those of Ryan Szpiech (probably Romance Languages and Literature expert, not historian) were inserted

What on earth are you drivelling on about? Ryan Szpiech is eminently RS on this. He is an expert on Muslim, Christian and Hebrew interactions in medieval Spain, commands a knowledge of medieval Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish and Latin, works on Sephardic culture (in which the Khazar correspondence is grounded) and on the function of the Bible in medieval Iberian sephardic culture. He provides aa close reading of the Hebrew text pertinent to that section, with direct citations in Hebrew. Are you hinting he forged the Hebrew text he cites? Really, Tritomex.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

g) Opinions of Russian historians and archeologists were taken out

Yes, and replaced by Peter Golden et al.'s synthesis of their various positions, which are very complex and contradictory.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

h)The Letter of King Joseph as a non disputed original 10th century document, which it is not.

You don't know what you are talking about.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I) Claims like " Modern scholars generally[127] see the conversion as a slow process through three stages, which accords with Richard Eaton's model of syncretic inclusion, gradual identification and, finally, displacement of the older tradition" were constructed through synthesis of unrelated views and implied as a historically proven scenario of Khazar conversion.

That is not a claim. That is what de Weese and Golden report of Eaton's model as applied to possible theories of the Khazar conversion. What on earth are you doing here?Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

j) The "Schechter Letter" is presented as undisputed authentic paper and its outdated interpretation is inserted.

You are ignoring note 99.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

k) Joseph Jacobs Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Maksymilian Ernest Gumplowicz, Samuel Weissenberg are all sourced with inaccessible tertiary sources while Abraham Eliyahu Harkavi who claimed relationship between Krymchaks, Karaims and Khazars was presented as the originator of Khazar theory, although another source added by you claim it was Samuel Weissenberg

They are all cited through excellent secondary sources, Rossman, Barkun, Singerman, Polonsky, Basista and Link-Lenczowski, and you have confused the fact that the original book titles ('inaccessible tertiary sources') are as given in those scholars' books. This is normal citational procedure, in wiki and in academia.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

l) Polyak, Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur are sourced solely through Sand, the additional source added(Golden) is unrelated to the subject

Replied to above, untrue by the way. I have provided the original works in both cases, as you once requested. You are repeating yourself and pretending I hadn't complied with your earlier request for the originals.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

m) Raphael Patai who simply described one racial anthropologists who claimed Khazar-Jewish conction is presented as a supporter of this theory (which he was not)

Please learn to construe English: 'registered some support for the idea Khazar remnants had played some role in the growth of East European Jewish communities' is not tantamount to him being a 'supporter of this theory'. See n.244. If you had read Patai, you would have noted that he then writes: 'During the period of both Khazaria's heyday and its decline, Khazar Jews driftedf westward and settled in Slavonic lands, contributing to thye foundation of a Jewish community together with Jews whom they met there and who had come from German lands and the Balkans.'Patai & Patai p.272 (Note again. You simply do not read sources)Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

n)Koesteler is used as a tertiary reliable source for Kutchera and a racist book from 1883 is also used as a reference.

This is the third time you mention Koestler. You really believe Koestler got the date wrong for Kutschera's book. Google it. The date is correct. You are repeating yourselfNishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

o) The Antisemitc repercution of this theory are systematically played down

Crap. They are given per due weight. Actually most of the antisemites mentioned in detail are so marginal they hardly merit mentioning. But I mention them.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

p) The controversial and marginal claims of Wexler, Sand and Elhaik were titled as the most updated scholarly finding on their fields-whith a term "recently"

Elhaik published recently. Antisemitic uses are also 'marginal', but you want more of the antisemitic innuendo claims highlighted, while desiring less of the '(pseudo-)marginal' scholarship that is not antisemitic sidelined. You can't have it both ways.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

r) Elhaik controversial genetic analysis was taken out from dozens of other analysis, the criticism of it as well as other much more prominent views were censored

No. Elhaik specifically addressed the Khazar hypothesis. The other papers just mentioned it en passant. He is singled out because he specifically directed his DNA research to the Khazars.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

s) All genetic studies were wiped out, beyond Elhaik

Untrue. They are all analysed on the talk page, where I showed you had systematically suppressed the fact that all the genetics papers regarded the Khazar input, as minor, but possibly there. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

t) A Palestinian anthropologists without any expertise from Jewish population genetic was inserted instead of population geneticists who were taken out.

Who? Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

u)Huge portion of historic, archeological and other material was removed.

No. Blobs of poorly sourced material spread over numerous unnconnected sections were removed and replaced by what reliable acadedmic Khazar specialists say of the assertions. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

v)All references to the connection of this theory and Antisemitism in Arab countries were taken out.

Untrue. Look again.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

w The artickle is full of claims of this type "The word Khazar, as an ethnonym, was last used in the 13th century of a people in the North Caucasus believed to practice Judaism"

You're being bloody-minded and stupid. Read note 214. That is sourced to Wexler who has a total command of the relevant literature and is a linguist, documenting a linguistic claim.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

z) Nowhere, it is presented that this theory is considered by almost all historian and almost all geneticist as marginal.

False, flying in the face of the textual evidence.E.g.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(a)'A modern theory, that the core of Ashkenazi Jewry emerged from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora, is generally treated with scepticism.'Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(b)'Several scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe. This hypothesis is greeted with scepticism or caution by most scholars.[218][219]Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(c)The general conclusion is that, if traces of descent from Khazars exist in the Ashkenazi gene pool, the contribution would be quite minor,[266][267][268][269][270] or insignificant.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is just partial and superficial recapitulation of all the problems with this POV pushed article. For details see talk page archives.--Tritomex (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you examine this list, it is a fudged jerryrigged potemnkin village attempt to make three points extend to the whole alphabet, such is its recursive repetitiveness. I can see no merit in any of these vague expostulations. You have, furthermore, falsified most of your assertions, since careful reading shows your remarks do not correspond to what the text has. If any of your points had merit earlier, they would have gained support from independent editors. So far they haven't. This is just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT waffle, used to smear the page with a specious claim there are problems with the text, problems which, so far, only you see. Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please immediately revert changes you have made to my text on this talk page, as it is violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I can only answer your allegations when you remove the text you have inserted in my my text or I will have to take action to protect Wikipedia guidelines otherwise. --Tritomex (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh? I am unaware of having altered your text. I did have an edit conflict when I was posting my replies, since in the meantime you had altered (f) on Ryan Szpiech. I added your revision to that item. I've wasted half a day trying scrupulously to reply to each of your 'points', and if some oversight has distorted something in your original framework, my apologies. If you only object to my replying to each point made underneath each item, well, no. It would be inhuman to expect other editors to try and follow each assertion and rebuttal by scrolling back and forth. We are here in dialogue, and dialogue consists of stichomythia, not people talking past each other in different parts of a page.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just signed all of my replies, so the distinction, apart from the indentation, should be pellucid.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To call Moshe Gil, a leading Jewish historian, and an expert of Arabic medieval text fringe ( most of what is non about Khazars is written by Arab historians (is WP:OR). Concerning historians of The Jewish people their opinion on the status of Khazr-Jewish relationship is not mentioned,nothing substantial from them is in the article and as in the case of Shapira they are used to construct a claim which non of them actually said regarding this subject. (WP;SYNTH)

Shlomo Sand is all over this article, concerning your claim that "No evidence is supplied that Sand misquoted (Jewish historians) " Well a loot of evidence was supplied.

Israel Bartal writes : "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is. ( Salon Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur, Polyak,.) I asked you repeatedly to provide direct quotes from this authors or to remove this quotes.

"Paul Wexler is one of the foremost experts on the history of yiddish, whose origins are linked by him to the Khazar theories, and his books have never been challenged for their summaries of vast amounts of scholarship on ethnic and linguistic issues in the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe."

Paul Wexler is not one of the "the foremost experts on the history of yiddish" he is a marginal scholar with a fringe linguistic theory and regarding his basic claim (that AJ are Khazar converts and Yiddish is a Slavic languge originating from Sorbs) the leading expert on this subject Heinz-Schuster-Sewc of the University of Leipzig, wrote "Such theory never existed and is a pure product of Mr. Wexler’s imagination." while the leading expert on Yiddish Paul Glasser said Mr. Wexler's logic “ is not supported by the evidence.”

"This is the third time you mention Koestler. You really believe Koestler got the date wrong for Kutschera's book. Google it."

I do not need to google anything but you need a credible source for your edits.

"No. Elhaik specifically addressed the Khazar hypothesis. The other papers just mentioned it en passant. He is singled out because he specifically directed his DNA research to the Khazars."

In fact all genetic studies on Jews indirectly address the Khazarian theory, and at least 5 of them directly.

Khazar correspondence:: I already showed Erdal and other scholars who proved that this letter was not written by Khazars and was not sent to KLhazar converts.

Who? Nadia Abu El Haj

For the rest I will come back when I will have free time.--Tritomex (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You wrote:'A Palestinian anthropologists without any expertise from Jewish population genetic was inserted instead of population geneticists who were taken out.'

Have you some problem with Palestinians? Abu El Haj is an American anthropologist of part Palestinian descent, whose work, cited here, is published by the University of Chicago Press, and is an historical, sociological and conceptual analysis, not of genetics, but on the political and cultural reflexes of three moments in the history of the 'science' of attempts to create a concept of race or kinship, from 1900, through the 1950s, to the 1990s, i.e. from cranial and phenotypic measurements, through serology to genetics. She is not quoted on genetics, but on the methodological distinction between genetic and historical approaches to these issues.

As to Paul Wexler. The source you googled dealt with the spectrum of responses (and is in turn derivative) and you cited the extreme negative ones. Any one can see that the responses went from open endorsement through moderate intrigue to outright dismissal. As to his status, you really should read Neil Jacob's Linguistic Introduction to Yiddish, or at least the Acknowledgements' page.

The rest of your comebacks ignore or talk past my original replies. I've removed your tag because nothing you have written above refers to any 'factual' errors or to ostensibly unreliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Split

The article is already almost 154k big, which makes it slightly hard to navigate, especially considering the ongoing dispute over its contents. I propose to split the significant portion of the article into Khazar Khaganate or the Kingdom of Khazaria (including sections on politics and government, religion in the kingdom, geography, etc.). The article on Khazars shall contain only one section on the Khazar Kingdom, similar to Nabatean kingdom and Nabateans.GreyShark (dibra) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, this seems to be the best proposal for dealing with the current status of this article.--Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you review the talk page, both myself and some other editors have suggested a split might be necessary. No one said the split, however, was required to avoid 'disputes over its contents' or to 'resolve the current status of this article'. Over the last few months I've spent some time mulling how it might be done, and my preliminary attempts to redesign it still leave the page at ca. 100-120,000 kb for the Khaganate, and 30-50,000 kb for the people, the problem being we know almost nothing of the Khazar people, but have extensive knowledge of its institutional, trade and diplomatic history.

What has to be avoided, given the tightly structured comprehensiveness designed into the page, is a cleaver approach. The 'problems' with the article boil down to what is negligible, a battle of WP:OWN between editors who wish to prove the Khazars have nothing to do with European Jews, and editors who wish to push that idea. Since it was completed, all 'disputes' are over this one issue. In my view, it is an ideological tussle between people who wish to overestimate Judaism's role in the Khazar empire and its diaspora, and people who wish to undercut it (I have over the last months argued against both, believing the evidence is inconclusive and therefore should not dominate the article). Both sides have an intense emotional investment in some 'truth' that must be by hook or crook brandished in the article which, however, was written to downcase this obsession by according it the status it has in Khazar studies, a minor thesis. Neither side shows any serenity or intrinsic curiosity in the Khazars themselves other than their bruited Jewish connection.

Given that splitting is a very complex matter, I think it fair to get as wide a community input as is possible, as well as the views of regulars. Perhaps we should ask for outside comment. And, if yes, then we should look around to see if wikipedia has writers with experience of doing a split of a GA level article into two, someone with no horse in the silly ideological POV pushing that has marked this page since its inception. (It is fully to be expected the Khazar people page, if split off, will involve mostly the Jewish-Ashkenazi debate, inviting massive expansion of the controversies and little on the Khazars in history) Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• While I see the merit in such a split, I also note that in other instances splits have been counter-productive. The Avars article was split, for instance, leaving two fragments that need to be read together to be coherent. The split would make sense if there was enough content to flesh out each page, but there isn't, and those arguing in favor of the split do nothing to remedy the problem. Thus we are left with two deficient articles. There may be enough content here for such a split, but I agree that simply cleaving off sections will leave loose ends without significant work, and it is frustrating that those calling for a split will not engage with other editors to accomplish it. Simply slapping a tag on a page and walking away creates extensive work for someone else, while making wholesale changes and refusing to engage in discussion exacerbates the on-going disputes. And the idea that a split will somehow alleviate the disputes on the page is ludicrous and ignores the substance of the controversy. The dispute will simply follow the content. Greyshark, why do you refuse to engage in discussion? The restructure of the page in the spring was a collaborative effort, and no one showed any inclination toward WP:OWN. That effort should be a model for any further rework, and your refusal to engage seriously undermines your suggested changes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I might add that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, is almost the same length, and was awarded FA status. There are many parallels: the article was the subject of endless edit-wars, structurally ragged with bits and pieces, and atrociously sourced. A basic team of editors just set the bar high - only academic sources - and we managed to get it out of the slough of despond. It took several months of almost daily volunteer hard-labour to get it up to snuff, and was still subject to frequent attempts to destabilize it, until ARBCOM intervened to stop the rot. Articles subject to great POV-battles or historical controversy tend to be lengthy. I think one practical interim measure one can take it to begin to fork a few things, as we did on the SAQ article. As I suggested earlier, one could create a more detailed 'History of the Khazar Ashkenazi theory' section; a detailed Khazars and genetics page where the full outlay of the various papers can be set out. That option is open, and I fail to understand why those who are dissatisfied with the highly laconic synthesis this page gives those subjects, don't profit to exploit the opportunity. Trying to do everything on this page was one of the reasons the prior version was so flagrantly incoherent. Everybody pitched their POV in their favourite section, without regard to narrative design, balanced coverage, and coherent templating.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: see my remark in the previous section before you accuse me of not engaging in dialogue.GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean your comment in the Reconstruction section, nearly a month ago. You've been asked multiple times by multiple editors to provide a more detailed proposal for the structural changes you are suggesting, yet you choose not to respond, then you propose a split and return to making structural changes without discussion. Making one remark is not engaging in dialogue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Four hours ago dear [2]. I'm waiting for your replies. The issue by the way now is one subtitle and not the reconstruction i was reverted by Nishidani last month.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

On both issues, and for the umpteenth time, please gain consensus here before making changes you know to be contested. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot make a discussion if you won't reply on the topic. You reverted me - fine, but please address why. Discuss at the above "bit-by-bit" section (this is not directly related with the split proposal).GreyShark (dibra) 18:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree in the need for consensus in all issues and in all time. However, Nishidani did not got consensus for overwriting of this article and he do not have any consensus for recent changes he makes almost every day. --Tritomex (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, read the archives. I worked for some months on this page, having announced my intentions, sketched what I intended doing, and asking fellow wikipedians for advice along the way. Could you please desist from making these wild unsubstantiated charges that constitute a personal attack. Do you realize how much real time I have to spend answering points that are wholly deprived of either substance or a knowledge of the topic we are editing, but seem to me merely to function as ammo for an attritional war? Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, you didn't make a successful work here. The article is a disaster; i would expect better from an experienced editor like you.GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What reason is there to split? Because size isn't a primary issue yet. The articles on the Han and Tang dynasties are both greater in size and are FA in status. --Al Khazar 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

Greyshark. There were several editors who watched every edit I made, in two periods, from early January-Febr until I gave up because Tritomex, in my view an incompetent editor, with no sure grasp on wikipedia policy and a fragile handle on English, and a POV pusher to boot, made working on this impossible. I came back to it, and continued, and those editors corrected, gave advice, edited and oversaw what I did. I had no prior assurance of their assistance: at times, earlier, they challenged me. But I trusted that they were informed and serious editors dedicated to improving an article which had fallen into disrepair and disrepute. The article has (a) a consistent formatting template (b) uses wiki GA/FA criteria, throughout (c) accepts only a very high bar for sourcing, i.e. academic specialists in the main on that ethohistorical area's history, being structured according to the outline given by Peter Golden, perhaps the doyen of the discipline of Khazar studies. (d) replaced the patchy, ramshackle, piece-meal blobs of the earlier article by a coherent chronological and thematic narrative (e) used WP:Undue strictly in order to redimension the excessive litigation over one aspect of the Khazars (the Ashkenazi-Khazar theories) which had for a decade created endless edit-warring by proponents or opponents of this theory who seem to have been unable to look beyond this to the Khazars themselves.(f) removed, thanks to Laszlo's assistance, a shocking amount of overmapping crammed into the article, fictive portraits of Khazars and God knows what else, which people who deplore my article never thought problematical, etc.etc.etc. Of course, this still is in a stage of development, and is not definitive. But to say that four months of intensive research, and careful editing have produced a disaster, rather than getting a shipwrecked article onto some sound shoal is incomprehensible. Those who are criticizing the article are wholly focused on just one thing - the Khazars-Jews-and-genetics fixation. They have not pointed out (forget Tritomex's endeavour to raise objections above, in that pathetic alphabetical soup of repetitious nonsense above) any serious errors. If they do find them (and they are bound to be there) they'll be fixed. In the meantime, editors who wish to prove they are interested in the article, i.e., in the Khazars broadly, would do well to improve the article's descriptions of their history, institutions, religion, and whatever: this monomaniacal focus on just one facet of their complex history shows that there are POV-pushing obsessions still afoot, the kind that ruined the article in the first place. The Khazars are not significant because some of them happened to have converted to Judaism, and obsessing about this, and its imagined implications, is not appropriate.

Apropos your recent addition, it is incomprehensible.

• Brook, Kevin Alan Current Research on the Khazars and the Origins of East European Jews 2002

It fails RS.

• Kevin Alan Brook is not a geneticist
• The paper is linked to an abstract, not to the full version.
• Even if a full version existed, it would have to be peer-reviewed by the genetics community and available in a complete form even to warrant discussion.
• The paper is not published in any genetics journal, as all the others are
• It doesn't even look as though it wase published, though I may be wrong.
• The Karaites are not necessarily the Khazars, yet you edited in material re the Karaites on the Khazar page from it.
• You elaborated on it though it is by a non-geneticist, in the face of the fact that all the other genetic references by solid scientists are summed up, rather than selectively quoted for one or other point of view.
• You ignored the obligation to format the link and article according to the standard templating the article now has, as if the aesthetics and quality were not important. Etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think my position is similar to LP's. The article is technically big enough to make a split discussion an obvious one to have, but I see reasons for caution here:

• I know from experience that split proposals on complex and difficult-to-edit subjects often end up creating two less-well-attended articles, that situation, making it easier for POV editors to slip under the radar and wear down other editors, often eventually evolve into "POV forks". Clearly what we have with this article is exactly such a situation with POV editors constantly trying to slip in questionable material, and almost constant diligence necessary.
• One of the obvious logical points which raises a concern then, is when the two proposed split-out subjects would need substantial coverage of the other topic in order to make them sensible. And in this particular case I find it hard to imagine how the two proposed articles would not be effectively covering at least about 50% of the same material. By splitting the efforts of our limited number of quality editors, such a situation can lead to 2 lesser quality articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing Reference in Footnote

Footnote 271 does not appear to lead to anything. What is this 'metspalu and behar' paper that is referenced with a question mark? 67.183.168.203 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Alex

You're quite right, and thanks for the remind. Metspalu/Behar refers to a paper which Tritomex had pre-conference indications would be delivered in September, before it was peer-reviewed, and before it had been vetted for publication in a top scientific genetics journal. Once this is published, it will of course be adduced together with the other papers mentioned here. I left the cite in, against the rules, as a placemarker. But there is really no point to it, since this goes against policy, and with a little patience, it will find its way here in a few months. Thanks for the reminder.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation on something: wasn't tritomex (the one currently lobbying for, one could say, the "immediate inclusion" of what is in question/being discussed here) the one who in the past put forward a series of attempts to prevent any inclusions or mentions of Elhaik's work when it happened to be just a preprint that had not yet gone through peer-review [3]. And then, if I recall correctly, this user then continued to put forth a series of very strange "arguments" even after Elhaik's paper got through peer-review [4][5] still trying to prevent any inclusion or mention of it here or on any other related articles. I seem to recall some of these attempts including claims like Elhaik's work supposedly "wasn't research" because it "used data from past papers" (or some, again very strange, "position" like that). A claim there that another user noted would be pretty similar to claiming an astrophysicist supposedly couldn't do research unless they personally, physically "built the satellite themselves!"Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. It's an ongoing problem with his editing, i.e., that the wiki criteria he uses differ from page to page, depending on the POV-added value in any source as calibrated in terms of whether or not a scientific paper supports the Middle East derivation of all Jewish people or not. Elhaik's paper countered this thesis, therefore is unacceptable, even if reliably published: Behar et als. promised paper supported this thesis, therefore it is acceptable, even as a preprint poster. One can define a POV-pusher by indexing the fluctations in their policy interpretation over disparate pages. I've once or twice lacked cogency in this regard myself, and have had to readjust my perspective when this has been pointed out. But the example here is rather egregious. Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It also could further be mentioned that with Elhaik's paper a full preprint paper (rather than just an abstract) was quickly available on arXiv here [6]. Waiting to include papers till they get through peer-review is a good step, and this was of course followed by the consensus of the editors with Elhaik's study. This waiting should especially be the case here with what you termed the "promised paper" of Behar et al. Because as of right now there only appears to be a short abstract floating around some places; which would not even give the minimum of a full rough draft for any one to review (putting aside the important peer-review criterion that should again be observed here overall).Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag (factual accuracy)

I note that the article currently has the above tag at the top. Of course such tags are meant to be temporary. Looking at this talkpage though I can not see any clear definition of a fact debate. I suggest removing the tag, or can someone give a simple clear definition a fact dispute pertaining to the article as a whole? (I can see disputes on this talkpage concerning due weight etc, but it is hard to pin actual clear claims about false information as such.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be removed. There has been no serious effort to justify it. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetics/historic discussion

Nishidani, pls be reasonable: even if "the results are in constant flux" it doesn't mean new results are irrelevant, particularly not when previous results are included. Reality is indeed in constant flux (panta rei, as Heraclit remarked), but we still have to contend with available facts meanwhile. Your overruling of "Nature, Communications" appears a little hubristic. Can I suggest you discuss for consensus before deleting? 80.212.15.123 (talk)

That's panta rhei, by the way, the rhota is aspirated. The new results are mentioned with direct citation of the scientific paper, in the genetics section. I haven't overruled "Nature Communications", and your saying so means you haven't read the page. See note 273, and the bibliography. Thirdly, you cited a newspaper report. Well, establish a precedent for this article for what newspapers say of genetics papers, for instance, and you will get an explosion, as each side in this POV-war by parties who espouse a thesis in violation of WP:NPOV, hops in with his ort her barrel-load of 'pro-my-beliefs' refs from the commentariat, and you will get a complete mess. Because reporters jump at each paper as it is published and highlight the claim, and there is a huge amount of claiming, for and against, which ignores the nuances. You'll get every positive assessment of Elhaik when his paper came out competing with every positive assessment of his critics, or of papers that challenge his work, in a propaganda battle. If you want that, then, do as I suggest, below. Open up a fork 'Genetics and the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory' and go for it. This page has aspired to very stringent wiki criteria: were some of us keen on assessments, it would certainly pass GA with a minimum of tinkering, and probably have good candidate status for the FA process. No one is doing that (it's time consuming and boring), and endless frigging around with the minor polemical angles is destabilizing. See further below this section.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@80.212.15.123, Personally I think your principle is not wrong but you need to look at the details of how to do this. There are lots of articles we could report but in sense we have a whole article for that, and it is also not an easy one to work on. See Genetic studies on Jews. Part of the problem is that we have no good secondary sources to tell us that the literature says "x". So we are forced to basically list out all the main research articles, which all disagree with each other and are clearly inconclusive. We don't have room for that approach on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fishydonei. Tnx. I've got yr number now: the quarrelous type who doesn't respect facts not concurrent with yr views, no matter how clear, and willing to waste everybody's time in order to stay bigoted yrself through half-baked arguments. Btw, that's "panta rei", alternative transliteration from the Greek - but you're not clever enough to get that, in being tendentiously clever. You're a disgrace. - Can't be bothered any more with you. * @All: I tried to contribute important new info re the issue not presented well elsewhere (no matter what Fishydoni claims), but here Wikipedia's no longer a place for updated facts, only updated prejudices - at least when it comes to the strangely fact-hating religion called "jewish". I'm outta here, Fishy. Go play in your mental sandbox - alone. Hope smbd deletes you for yr low-brow edit warring soon.

80.212.15.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the portmanteau 'quarrelous' (+quarrel + querlous). Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Re Nishidani's edit-warring: The history of this page demonstrates how Nishidani consistently hijacks the contents to fit his purposes. It's nonetheless to be hoped that Nishidani will allow simple ref.s to recent research to remain. The opposite is obvious vandalism, and hopefully isn't accepted by Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.15.123 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It has never been adequately clarified what my ostensibly devious 'purpose' is in 'hijacking' this article. If anyone can finger the POV I am supposed to bring to this article, as opposed to experience in rewriting contorted POV-ridden articles so that they pass GA or close in on FA quality, by all means set forth the evidence. Otherwise shut up.

As to jamming in more 'stuff' re genetics, there is an appropriate subpage for this, and your edit only reduplicates with a secondary source what is already mentioned re Costa and co., higher up. It's called careful editing - to read the whole page and consult the talk page before walking in with info that only shows one hasn't read the relevant section. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

POV battles. A note to both sides.

There are two groups of POV pushers vexing the page, without actually caring to discuss their reverts or additions. The odd thing is that they are diametrically opposed.

• (a)Those who wish to suppress the lead note on the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis's occasional association with antisemitism
• (b) Those who wish to showcase putative refutations of the same hypothesis in genetic papers.

To explain, assuming good faith, (a):-

This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

I personally don't think this important enough to be in the lead, since the many notable scholars, Israeli/Jewish or otherwise, have advanced the thesis without the slightest taint of antisemitism, and should not be tarred with that brush. The antisemites we list are mainly obscure, fringe fanatics.

• Despite my personal assessment, I wrote that sentence per WP:Lede summary style, the sentence alluding succinctly to the last two sections. The function of a lead is to summarize the contents. The word 'sometimes' (Zero's choice) replaces 'occasional' (dismissed by User:Jayjg on WP:NOR grounds), and represents a careful compromise. The sentence makes the connection some wish to emphasize, but at the same time it correctly notes, in 'sometimes', that antisemitism is not intrinsic to the hypothesis. It thus fashions a compromise between those reverters who defend the legitimacy of the theory, and those who think the evidence delegitimates it. Neither group should press for any change that breaks WP:NPOV, either by suppressing the line, or by overemphasis of the antisemitism-Khazar/Ashkenazi connection.

As to (b):-

• The genetics section meticulously cites all of the scientific work which challenges the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis. It does so briefly on the grounds of (i) WP:Undue because the page is about Khazars, their origins, history, culture, institutions, demise, and lastly, a modern theory about its possible diasporic impact. Another crucial factor is article length. We have covered most angles, and have a large article which is at the upper limit for length. Adding more negative detail to the genetics section would tempt an explosion of details that foreseeably would strain WP:Undue and the optimal article upper-limit length. The stable productive editors of the page have calculated all these issues with care. Editors who wish more details on that issue (and if one consults the archives here, here, andhere) should open up a subpage. It's simple to write that fork: (a) assemble (already done) all genetics papers and books which mention the Khazar theory (b) consult the originals, and paraphrase each neutrally, in chronological order, for what they say (and avoid selective citation) (c) add the way each of these books and papers' results on the Khazars/Ashkenazim was reported in the newspapers or secondary sources, and then write a lead summarizing the lot per due weight. This is what one does when one considers a main page is not detailed enough, and edit-warring to get one's POV into it is destructive. Lastly, it is curious that neither party to this POV war has done anything to improve the overall article. The focus is on the political implications of the theory (does it (de)legitimate Israel?), and neither group will ever be satisfied there. The page as it stands tries to stand above that absurd fray, and write what should interest readers, i.e., the comprehensive history of the Khazars, rather than fantasize about one minor aspect of their reception in this POV-obsessive age.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

the problem with the genetic section, is that it is purely about alleged Khazar - Ashkenazi Jewish connections (proving/refuting), but there is no single research about actual findings from Khazar graves and connections of Khazars to the current populations of Northern Caucasus (specifically those claiming Khazar ancestry).GreyShark (dibra) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We edit in stuff according to what the record throws up. So far, genetics deals with the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory. When we have competent reports on skeletons, they to will go in. The lack of the latter is not a problem with the text. It is a lacuna in the scholarly sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Greyshark, you are right. I think the relevance of any of that material is limited on this article. But that does not mean we can avoid mentioning it if we are going to try to achieve a consensus between the extremes. These genetics articles at least claim to have something to say about Khazars, and the various extreme editors will keep wanting to cherry pick the ones who say what they want (n the basis of their great admiration for the geneticists involved of course). :) If we have to have something, then, like Nishidani says... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why not mentioning Buhler who is trying to link Khazars with both Askenazi Jews and Vikings in Genetics of the immune cell receptors TCRB and CCR5 in human disease? What about the article by Guglielmino on Genetic Structure in Relation to the History of Hungarian Ethnic Groups?GreyShark (dibra) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'd never seen them. I think this just shows that we do need a The Ashkenazi-Khazar theory and Genetics' page fork. We just can't get into the details, and the major research papers are just listed for pro, dubious, contra. The potential for expansion is notable, but it would mean 20kb extra, and that's why I suggest someone passionate about this open up a special page on it. Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding criticism of the Ashkenazi Khazar theory

Reverting me and another user, Nishidani insists that I get a consensus before I add this new section. Ironically, he accused me in the edit summary of not complying with WP:NPOV, which is completely WP:BIAS double standard! So here I am, "proposing" this new section. Thanks Yambaram (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This was discussed, and the editors who have actually rewritten the page concurred that massive structural alterations were to be discussed first before being edited in. You ignored this, and simply pasted in the trash below. It break the format, it is a jumble of googled incoherencies, and has established the precedent of returning the page to the chaotic mess it was several months ago. Galassi walked in and did the standard, 'no comment, I support the other guy' dirty work. Unimpressive, and the intent is obvious. You have the option of forking. If you blow ins persist, I'll excorporate it and make the fork subpage. We are aspiring to deal with an NPOV-compliant quality article here, no political POV pushing or point scoring.Nishidani (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is more clear than ever that the A-K issue needs to be forked off into its own article. The page is already Very Large, and the new section has a Needs Expansion tag, promising even more content. Rather than expanding the section here, that effort should be put into building a new entry. Perhaps if the issue has its own page, some of the controversy can be dealt with by delving more deeply into the various studies. At any rate, it would focus the discussion/dispute onto a dedicated page, rather than appending it here, where it keeps the page in flux. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong that Yambaram's provocation (editing against the talk page, indeed ignoring it) is the first step towards pushing the article out of reasonable limits, in order to drive home a consensus to split it, which would smash the article and require extenuating efforts to rebuild the resulant two pages. But in any case, to avoid endless warring and the resultant messes, I have done Yambaram's work for him, by creating a subpage specifically on the theory and removing his additions there, where all are free to dump in details and material without the kind of worries caused recently on this page.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Although certainly this article needs restructuring, removing of problematic sources and eventual splinting, If a new sub-page for Khazar theory would be created on consensus,than all material,( not just selective criticism) related to Khazar Theory (including sections written by Nishidani) has to be transferred there.--Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no agreement it needs restructuring; no one can finger one source on the page as it existed before Yambaram's edit, which is identifiably problematical; what needs 'splinting' is a damaged body, and the proposal to 'split' the article has been rejected so far. To cope with a legitimate desire by Yambaram and yourself to develop (extensively) the short sections on this page covering the history of the theory and antisemitism The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory‎ has been created. It will almost certainly run, checking the material I myself have gathered, to considerable length, developing in depths the points that, per summary style for what is a minor aspect of Khazar studies, have been registered here. It is not wiki practice to eviscerate the main page subsections when you develop a subpage, as you are suggesting. I guess it's more work for me as stuff is thoughtlessly googled up, unformatted, and slapped onto that page. The page simply cannot support extra material. I have withheld much material in respect of that necessity, and some new research will have to be added which, were this new stuff retained, bring the page way past acceptable limits. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Before we categorically deny or accept a huge conclusion, we need to realize where the sources come from, who wrote the sources. Ashkenazi Jews who don't want connection with Khazars will say that David came down from heaven and Jews were living in Israel for centuries and they travelled north to form Ashkenazi community. Eastern sources might say they are connected to Jews. The better question is why do people keep saying they are Ashkenazi and Khazar connection? Are they all 100% anti-Semites? are they talking about alternative interpretation? Were Huns Mongols? Were Xiongnu Mongols? Just try to look at why do people keep saying Khazar-Jew connection? If there is a factual link between these two they are factually connected if people like it or not. This is history. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, this understanding of Jews coming down from heaven or being created by David or Jacob, or Mount Sinai or God sending Hebrew Bible from the heavens has already gone too far. This is myth/religion/folklore. I don't think people should make strong arguments in the already contentious article. It is not black or white or 1 or 0.. There could be Khazar admixture. It is relative. I think Jews are very much mixed people. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You are an idiot. David did not "come down from heaven," and God did not create Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. This is real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.42.139 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well David is in the heavens right? and David sent his blessings from the heavens and magically and in some way Jews were the chosen people. There were ancient people in the country now called Israel, but I think they converted to Islam and became Palestinians. I personally don't think Ashkenazi is connected to Israelis/ancient Middle East people. They disappeared. The Ashkenazi basically invented and glorified the supposed connection to ancient Israel, but genetically and by blood, I don't think there is a big connection if at all. There are couple of things that people should know before writing these articles. 1. Religion/myth: David, Jacob, Torah, Judaism 2. History: ancient middle east people now located in Israel, Khazars, Ashkenazi. There is a very strong distinction between these two. There are basically no genetic links between Jews except the ones that bred in Europe among the Ashkenazi. There are blood links between Ashkenazi because they were so insular but extending that to include all Jews is ludicrous. This mythological and heavenly connection between all Jews that were blessed from the Gods and now they are struggling has gone too far. This is feel good mythology and not based on reality. People need to distinguish between myth (likely false) and real history (rock, ground, mountain, food). Also people really can't deny the possible connection between Ashkenazi and Khazars and that is what is being argued here, but to state here and categorically 100% deny the connection is biased. Just state the positions, arguments and reasons. Why do they say there is a connection? This is a central question of the article. Why, what cause, what happened, where did they go, who is arguing it. 107.18.43.122 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yambaram's 'we have the truth' section.

This edit is all over the place like a mad man's crap. It's an incogruent mess of internal contradictions, selective and often poor sourcing, to prove a point.

(1)Historians and scientists today believe the Khazarian theory should more accurately be called a myth.

• Entine, Jon. "Israeli Researcher Challenges Jewish DNA links to Israel, Calls Those Who Disagree 'Nazi Sympathizers'", Forbes, May 16, 2013>

Not a reliable source (and a demonstrable untrue generalization by an interested party) (2)The theory, which claims that today's Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazar empire that had converted to Judaism, has been widely spread on the Internet and is often associated with anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian groups as well as antisemitic circles.

• Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. "Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity". Retrieved 9 November 2013.

This is already stated in the text and the source is already used in the text (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke,Black Sun see note 255). Ie., reduplication of preexisting matter.

(3)A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis

• "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" (PDF). Nature Communications. Retrieved 8 November 2013.

(4)and although there is no historical or DNA evidence to support the the Khazar idea, it is still popular in Arab states.

• Unterman, Alan (2010). Historical Dictionary of the Jews. Scarecrow Press. p. 98.

This was published before Elhaik, and therefore is outdated, (b) popular in the Arab States'. The text cites Bernard Lewis on this already. (5)Generally, the theory has brought up speculation

• Goldstein, David B. (2008). "3". Jacob's legacy: A genetic view of Jewish history. Yale University Press. pp. location 873 (Kindle for PC). ISBN 978-0-300-12583-2.

Brought up means 'vomited' in English

(6)and opposing arguments that there's no legitimate evidence to support it

• Melissa Hogenboom, 'European link to Jewish maternal ancestry BBC News, 9 October 2013.

Using a science reporter to make a call on what is 'legitimate evidence' on an historical question (7) by numerous scientists.

• "No indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews". ASHG. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

The text already cites numerous scientific papers challenging the Ashkenazi theory. Reduplication (8)Another contradiction to the theory is that Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling in Germany in the year 321,

• W. D. Davies, Louis Frankenstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042. ISBN 1-397-80521-8.

All Jewish histories say 'Ashkenazi Jews' are never mentioned in any source until 7 centuries later

• "Medieval Source book Legislation Affecting the Jews from 300 to 800 CE". Retrieved February 29, 2008.

(9)or approximately 500 years before the alleged Khazar conversion. In addition, Ashkenazi Jews have been found to have a DNA connection to Israelites and the Middle East,Middle East origins:

• Jared Diamond (1993). "Who are the Jews?" (PDF). Retrieved November 8, 2010. Natural History 102:11 (November 1993): 12-19.

Outdated source by an anthropologist on genetics, and the theory he proposes is challenged by recent professional geneticists, and therefore cannot be stated as though it were a fact.

• "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Retrieved 11 October 2012.
• Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis ; with a chapter 1 introduction by Mark D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. ISBN 9780120884926.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

The year is 2008. Costa and Richards 2013 disagree. Therefore this is not a fact, as reported, but a theory.

(10) sharing many common genes with other Jews from some 3000 years ago.

• Wade, Nicholas (June 9, 2010). "Studies Show Jews' Genetic Similarity". New York Times. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
• "Who Are the Jews? Genetic Studies Spark Identity Debate" (PDF). Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Retrieved 9 November 2013.

Wade in 2010 is cited, Wade contradicting what he said there, in 2013, ignored. POV selective sourcing push. (11)Using four Jewish groups, one being Ashkenazi, a Kopelman et al study found no direct evidence to the Khazar threory

• Kopelman NM, Stone L, Wang C; et al. (2009). "Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewish ancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations". BMC Genetics. 10: 80. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-80. PMC 2797531. PMID 19995433. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Bad prose. 'Threory' is 'theory', no direct evidence to = no direct evidence for. Many other papers by Ostrer, Behar et al, say there may be a minor Khazar input. (12) while another research concluded that its findings "debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.

• "New Study Finds Most Ashkenazi Jews Genetically Linked to Europe". Jewishvoiceny.com. 2013-10-16. Retrieved 2013-10-31.

Not RS for the type of quality used by the article.

This genetics paper cited for (12) contradicts the genetics papers cited for (9) and (10)

This is totally incoherent plastering of 'stuff' in order to make a case for the 'truth', while ignoring the plea that expansions of this kind (5000kb) would only per WP:NPOV call for a balancing expansion that would blow out the article. Further, it completely ignores the arduously established unified template (c) A consensus agreed that any further additions of this kind were inappropriate to the page, and this appears to have no other purpose than to destabilize it.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

While there might be one or two things here that should be mentioned in the article, merely collecting all the scraps one can find to support one's preferred position and shoving them into the article is unacceptable editing practice on Yambaram's part. Zero^talk 01:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yambaram and Galassi for trying to create an useful article from this. The section you created needs to be expanded with other historic sources. Other sections have to be rewritten as well.--Tritomex (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani at least 3 editors are telling you to stop with your reverts. You have now violated the 3R edit warring rule--Tritomex (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither User:Yambaram, User:Galassi (in the past I have only ever seen him edit pages I work in order to revert me without explanation in someone else's favour) nor yourself read or contributed to the talk page where the problems of adding more material were discussed.Note that you have now created havoc, by not even looking at my talk page explanation, nor examining the subpage (The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory) I created 10 minutes ago, as is shown by the fact that I did not 'revert' anyone. What you did was a blind revert, restoring the page without even caring to examine the changes, i.e., edit-warring Gleichschaltung. I placed new material on this page into the subpage several thing required. So, you are all engaged in game-playing here, acting mechanically and in lockstep, and the obvious effect is to start wrecking the article. And please show where I violated the 3R rule. Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I intended to say that your further reverts will be violation of 3RR. You have made 3Rs within 24h, therefore my apology for saying it incorrectly. Regarding the substance, archives are full of materials showing in what horrific state of POV pushing this article was left (from sourcing with unreliable authors, picking up sources and deleting or removing well sourced material) after it was overwritten few months ago. I am sorry but I cant repeat myself each time someone try to create something positive from the current status of this article.--Tritomex (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you said what you stated, and accused me of something I did not do. I will add it to the impressive list of your threats and POV pushing because this disruptive behaviour canìt continue and must be addressed in an administrative forum. You reverted a text without looking at its merits, and that too is a grave violation of our editorial obligations. Feel free to improve the subpage because that is where this massive 10,000 kb expansion, with the promise of further material, has to go for reasons already explained. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. I'm still waiting for you to revert an edit that, by your own admission, was done incorrectly, without examining the nature of my edit. Your edit summary:'Not justified removal of sourced material' ignores the fact that it was justified on the talk page immediately afterwards, and no removal or revert was involved, but a transfer of questionable expansion to a subpage.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are free to proceed according to your wish. Although editing Wikipedia is only my hobby, as I am not retired from my job I am also not addicted to editing. Regarding your threats, I have a plenty of material about you as well. Regarding sub-page, you created out of your own will, 3 editors told you that removing selectively this material from this article is not justified. You proceeded with this under new pretext, third time within 24 hours, reverting 2 editors and disregarding opinion of 3 editors. Regarding the new section on criticism I think its addition to the article is fully justified and in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. Regarding sub-page about Khazar Theory, its clear that neutrality demands , that eighter everything related to the issue (including your massive texts related to Khazar Theory written few months ago) goes from article there, or nothing. I will never support selective removals of well sourced material. --Tritomex (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, if you ever read the talk page.

• (1)Greyshark initiated, without prior comment, a massive restructuring of the article, and it contained numerous problems, duly analysed. A discussion ensued, and the long-term editors concurred that edits of a structural novelty were to be proposed before they were made.
• (2)An important issue was that the article was already at the limits, length-wise. The consensus was (Andrew, Laszlo, myself and I believe Khazar2, that splitting the article, as then proposed, was inadvisable.
• (3)A fork was suggested for editors who wished to make more extensive coverage of key subsections.
• Indifferent to (1) (2) and (3) User:Yambaram jumped in with a major structural change, a new section, expanding the article heavily, made no proposal beforehand, ignored the invitation to fork, and refused to make an argument in defence of his edit, and in justifying the various consensuses formed here on these issues. The contempt is also in his casual use of indifferent sources and refusal to respect the template for citations adopted uniformly by the page.
• I naturally reverted him because he violated the collaborative nature of the work done here. User:Galassi appeared out of nowhere and reverted my edit, as I was analysing the problems with Yambaram's edit. I made an extensive list of points, which have not be replied to, neither by Yambaram, Galassi or yourself.
• I eventually shifted the material to the subpage, in line with the above considerations of a threat to the length limit, because that whole section gives negative criticism while ignoring that many of the genetics papers, while denying the Khazar theory as a central factor, do not exclude it as a possible minor element. WP:NPOV was destroyed, and to restore it, one would have then had to add extensive material to balance the critical material. This would have brought the page up to 20,000 kb more in two days, and that is unacceptable. The only option was to transfer the new material, by creating a sub-page to cover every angle. I did that.
• You didn't even look at my edit, the subpage, and reverted me on the false grounds that I broke 3R.
• So this has been, with three editors, a total subversion of the normal wiki process of collaborative editing. Instead of a workmanly consensus via talk, there is a kind of automatic tagteaming by yourself and others while no serious attempt to engage with the longterm editors has taken place. It is reverting by fiat, and refusing to explain oneself. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Greyshark proposed and I agreed to split the article in to two parts namely Khazars and Khazar kingdom-so this has nothing to do with the current issue.The only thing you forgot is that nowhere it was agreed or even discussed what will eventually go from this article to the sub-page snd certainly you did not have consensus that within few hours you should decide what should be taken out from this article and moved to sub-page . In my opinion if there is agreement that this page should be split into Khazars and Khazar Theory, naturally everything related to the Khazar Theory including your additions have to be moved to the new article. This is not something that you can solely decide, nor should your edits enjoy privilege over Galassi and Yam edits . Do not forget that the section regarding Ashkenazi-Khazar links was created and written recently by yourself adding more than 20,000 kb of new material into the article as well. My proposal is therefore to move all material related to Khazar Theory to the sub-oage shortening the current article without selective-Chery picking . Based on this general terms, I propose to discuss the exact portion of the text which falls in to this category and which should be moved to the sub-page with all involved editors in the next 24-h. By than a consensual decision on this subject will emerge. As I said neutrality requires that both the theory and its criticism should be moved jointly, and in this way no editor and its contribution would be harmed. You also must understand that people are not spending whole days in editing Wikipedia, so instant and unilateral decisions and are impossible and contra-productive. --Tritomex (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

regarding issues you have raised:

• (1) This could be sourced with Bernard Lewis as well,
• (2) (3)If the source is already in the text it does not mean that it cant be used for other references too. For example you used Elhaik papers in at least 3 places in the article.
• (4) Elhaik contravrsial and widely criticized analysis is not ground breaking event in the historic science or in population genetics, and there are new published genetic studies which disputes Elhaik claims, so by this logic Elhaik would be outdated as well.
• (5) ?
• (6) The genetic origin of any people is primarily population genetic question, much more than historic question
• (8) I need time to look at this question.
• (9)(10) This could be sourced with academic genetic books like Tony Frudakis also.
• (11) The claim is fully supported with the source.--Tritomex (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Greyshark's proposal was turned-down. In any case, I have already begun to construct the subpage, it is, on day one 26 kb, and I calculate that it will roughly run to 100kb, based on what will happen when we expand the compressed details here. Your arguments have no merit, because the Khazar page here has obligatory sections on the modern controversy, are as as synthetic as policy demands for what is a minor aspect of Khazar studies (read the surveys). This odd proposal, 'Khazars and Khazar Theory' (what on earth is 'Khazar theory'? Almost everything about the Khazars is 'theory, from their origins, to their language and their conversion) that all mention of the controversy should be removed from the page has no precedent I am aware of.

As to your 24 hour limit, where on earth in wiki policy did you get this draconian time limit for what is a major proposal (apart from the fact that I will be away from wikipedia from Monday to late Tuesday or early Wednesday)? Again this is a unilateral assumption you are trying to dictate over the fate of a page that took several months of daily labour to build, and that was done consensually. You are endeavouring to frogmarch procedures here unilaterally, esp. by a new group of editors who have contributed nothing to the construction of the page, while those who have concur that any kind of radical surgery will in all probability wreck the page. I would suggest therefore that this part of your proposal be dropped (certainly until I am back to participate).Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Khazar theory is not a modern controversy as only 3 marginal controversial scholars advocate it (all three partially and from different aspects. This theory does not even have precise name and definition as it does not exist in reliable academic historic sources. One of the most prominent advocate of Khazarian theory is not even mentioned by this article. It was Benjamin H. Freedman who provided the financial support for Holocaust denier publications and in 1959 claimed that there were many million more Jews in the United States than Jews were willing to admit. These were the six million he claimed "allegedly put to death in furnaces and in gas chambers between 1939 and 1945" He was the creator of Khazarian conspiracy theory, which he formulated in his famous 1961 speech.)) while the overwhelming majority of scholars do not take it seriously. You created recently a section of this article regarding this theory, expanding hugely this article. Yam created as per WP:NPOV a section regarding scientific criticism of this theory. So in my opinion, neutrality dictates that eighter both will be moved to a subpage, or both will stay. Both yours and Yambaram edits are recent additions to this page.You cant demand preferential treatment for your edits. You unilaterally created a subpage without waiting to discuss its context with other editors, than you edited it, again without discussing it with us. Here you reverted Yam, Gallasi Greyshark and me, and you removed the neutrality and accuracy tag challenging the neutrality of your edits.

Regarding 24h I never said it was a limit, it was a proposal. Regarding sub-page, if you already decided that it will be 100kb, and if you already edited it, what is left for discussion or consensus? Anyway I am really tired with this article talk page, I spent days and nights here, so I will be absent for some time as well.--Tritomex (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After Greyshark's rewrite was reverted, the talk page agreed that major changes should be discussed beforehand here. Greyshark, unlike the editors who followed, being an editor of long experience, did not push the point. Instead, Yambaram went ahead with a major edit which reduplicates (while expanding) a section, breaks the narrative flow, caring neither to accept the judgement of peers, nor to explain its necessity before or after. I was in my rights therefore to revert it. Galassi immediately reverted me - coming out of left field - no discussion before or after. I reverted it per the talk page consensus, and you then reverted me. The silent numbers game playing against the rationally discussed consensus of editors who have actually worked the page over the last year. (b) the subpage has much more detail than this, including Yambaram's additions, which have to be reedited there because they are POV-pushing, therefore his addition has, as a major but immature or incomplete expansion, no place here, for reasons of kb limits. For these two reasons the text must assume the form it had before Yambaram added that material, which doesn't mean the text of this page, in the relevent sections, can't be finessed (c)Benjamin H. Freedman was no alone: the list could and will be expanded on the other page, including such people as James Keegstra(see Alan Davies, 'The Keegstra Affair,' in Alan T. Davies (ed.)Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation, Wilfred Laurier University Press, (1992) 1999 pp.227-248, pp.241ff. Like several of the crackpots already mentioned, these fools are non-entities in the world of Khazar studies, which only really is contaminated by antisemites by some scholars in the Slavic world. The place for all this obscurity is not here.

It may only be a coincidence but precisely as this page came under attack an attempt to hack into my wiki account, from an address in Petah Tikva, was undertaken. I have the relevant details, down to the identity and address of the company, if any administrator wishes to look at them.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism

People shouldn't get so emotional about Jews or Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars. If Ashkenazi are descendants of Jews, say they are descendants of Jews. If they are not descendants of Jews, say that they are not descendants of Jews. This is a historical topic. People shouldn't get so emotional and scared of Khazar and Jew connection. Just state the truth. World is not going to collapse if there are Khazar and Jew connection.

Also this digging deep into sources written by who knows who isn't really going to help the article. First of all probably most of the sources are biased. The Jewish authors stated that Ashkenazi descended from David that came down from heaven and the others say partially Jews are descandants of Khazar. I personally think there is a possibility of Jewish and Khazar connection, it is called ethnogenesis. People change, religion change and society and culture change and people move to different location. Their appearance/race/ethnicity change. For instance if an Asian person marries an European, he/she will look mixed and if that person marries an European he/she will will look European.

I personally don't believe that Moses, David, Jacob came down from good old heaven and invented the Jewish people. Judaism is a simple religion that is mixed with ethnicity by the Jews themselves to insulate each other from other societies. I personally think this book The Invention of the Jewish People is pretty closer to the truth. Also these sources that people get so into it is practically useless written from Western perspective and are all biased. They try to dig big things out of nothing.

There are basically three things that will happen to historical people (basically all people in history) - They die, get killed and totally wiped out and probably 1-2% of them survive as slaves and they will probably disappear - They change and absorb into the surrounding culture. Their appearance and culture will morph with the surrounding people and gradually disappear -They will move on to a different location and then they might get absorbed among the new population.

but generally the most likely scenario is absorption by surrounding culture.

On the other hand people need to objectively look at where does Ashkenazi community come from? If Khazars converted and disappeared, where does Ashkenazi come from? Did 10 Jews come down from Israel and convert Europeans and then there were 7 million Jews in Europe? Why do people say Khazar and Ashkenazi are connected? Why do they say that? Is it factually correct or is it just trying to delegitimize Jewish history. Better question would be look at this from the opposite direction. How did Ashkenazi came to be? Did they really came from Israel? If a person converts to Judaism, does that mean he is direct/blood descendant of ancient Jews? I don't think so. He/she converted just like Islam and Christianity. Does that person have genetic links to ancient Jewish people. No. If an insular people breed and marry with each other for a long time would there be a new physical appearance emergence, possibly yes. If a Jewish person marries a Christian and that Christian converts to Judaism, is he/she biologically related to good old David/Tribes of Israel/Hebrew/Jacob/David. no. People also need to distinguish when religion/myth ends and real history begins. Also people shouldn't take Jewish and Khazar connection as always anti-Semitic. If history states that there are Jewish and Khazar links, would history be anti-Semitic? No. This is telling the truth. Simple truth. It is really not about who is wrong or right. This is what happened and people can make their own decisions.

Just state the truth. This is not a pissing contest. Read Shlomo Sand and stop trying to invent things out of nothing. It is not going to work and it will more confuse people. Just a thought. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Seal Image

Utilizing the image of the star shaped seal is willfully misleading people. The six sided star is a symbol that is associated with Judaism today. But, what is known now as "The Star of David" has only been a Jewish symbol for the last two centuries or so. In the classical era, this symbol would not have had any Jewish connotation. I have encountered people on the internet posting pictures of the seal shown in this article under the assumption that it is of Jewish origin, and that is not known. For this reason, in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding, it should not exist in this article. Astragius (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

'Wilfully misleading'? Why, though I am used to this, do so many editors succumb to the temptation to think that things on this page they dislike are there because of some obscure desire to mislead or deceive readers?

You really should read the whole page. It has a specific discussion on the way the finding of such a seal in Khazaria, and al-Roy's messianism, are connected in scholarship. A.N. Poliak made the association, and Baron commented that Alroy's 'connection with the Magen David . .still awaits further elucidation and proof' (vol.3 p.329 n.40). The point is also discussed by Kevin Brook pp.122-3. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I went to read Baron from the article references, however reference "Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1957). A Social and Religious History of the Jews 3. Columbia University Press. Retrieved 26 July 2013" redirects to Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement By Michael Barkun [7].?--Tritomex (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Through Amazon books I succeed to get inside Baron book [8] As far as I see p.329 n.40 discuss the story of Ishak, a Jewish merchant who reached China. I do not find here anything related to Magen David.--Tritomex (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I used apparently the Barkun template to do the Baron entry. I have now fixed the link. I have the 1957 book, and above cited the relevant page p.329 n.40 (from the 1952 edition see here).Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok but where "Baron commented that Alroy's 'connection with the Magen David . .still awaits further elucidation and proof'" on page 329, n40 certainly not [9]--Tritomex (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's on p.329 n.40 of the volume I mentioned above. If you can't find it, you have the wrong book. Please don't waste my time, or question my bona fides.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the artifact should be just stated as such, that this was supposedly found. I don't think people should deduce a huge conclusion out of it. I personally think one random artifact is not really sufficient to state a one huge answer. More artifact, different artifacts along with historical writings and debates will help it make it clear. Maybe a Jewish traveler dropped his/her artifact while travelling through the land some years or centuries later. Who knows. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy debates exist about it, pro and con. If you read the note appended, you will see no conclusions are drawn, since the evidence itself is inconclusive. I'm puzzled why the presence of an ostensible Jewish artifact in Khazaria is thought problematical, yet in any other dig elsewhere], it is acclaimed with joy.

You write:'Maybe a Jewish traveler dropped his/her artifact while travelling through the land some years or centuries later. Who knows.' Well, that 'worrying away' a thing into insignificance doesn't apply to anything found in, say, Jerusalem, though as one observer remarked on a recent unearthing in that city, which was hailed as "a breathtaking, once-in-a-lifetime discovery.”

'I was not convinced in the least by what I saw. That one little gold plate bearing Jewish symbols amid some sort of package that perhaps fell out of someone’s pocket in Jerusalem of the 7th century C.E. does not prove anything: It is simply a little gold plate bearing Jewish symbols.'

Same logic, and pointless, except to show how taboo-ridden the subject is for its perceived (and stupid) implications.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

..The hexagonal star is universal symbol used by many ancient civilizations and peoples for thousands of years. Among others, much before it became Jewish symbol it was an Islamic symbol as well خاتم سليمان Khātem Sulaymān seal of Solomon. It was also the main symbol of Turkic Islamic Karamanids dynasty which ruled over Western part of Turkey. The hexagonal star was especially popular among Anatolian beyliks. Ancient hexagonal stars were not Jewish symbols as this symbol became connected with Judaism only about 400 years ago. Contrary to this Menorah was a Jewish symbol for at-least 2 thousands of years. This is something probably known to everyone.--Tritomex (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree that it is a commonly known fact that the hexagonal star is not an exclusively Jewish symbol. That's the whole reason I have a problem with this image. Who could blame someone for coming to that conclusion when the seal image rests right next to a paragraph about Khazaria being a Jewish state. Even more misleading is the fact that the image is named "Davestar", I assume as reference to the "Star of David". Then there's the caption beneath the image, "Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear". It is indeed unclear. What indication is there that this is even an artifact of a religious nature, or from what time period it came? According to the image in question's history page, this was recovered from "The Donets River in eastern Ukraine and the other along the Don River in southern Russia." If this is true, and since it is uncited I'm not certain of that, this would mean it was recovered from an area dominated by the Khazar people. But, since it is potentially misleading and there's gaps in information about it, I just don't see what benefit there is to keeping this image apart from displaying an artifact from the period. I posit that another appropriate image of Khazar art could be found to replace this one. Or, if the image absolutely must remain, that the caption makes it clear that the symbol is indeed universal, and that any relation between it and the modern "Star of David" is coincidental. Please don't take this suggestion as an indication that I wish to censor this article or suppress the truth or anything, I simply think it would be a better article as a result. (I'm the same person as Astragius, however I'm having trouble accessing that account so I'm using this one I made and abandoned years ago. Sorry.)Wetaskiwin (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

apologies to the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=next&oldid=582635313 this edit contradicted thed edit summary, and Galassi did the right thing to revert me. I can only plead (a) a cresoite blocked chimney smoking out the house (b) post office closed because of electrity failure stopping one from paying due bills (c) no bars, lacking electricity, able to provide one with breakfast (d) finding one of my cats dying (e) trying for two hours to fix a double billing error on my telephone, to mention just a few things, all within three hours, before editing. It is self-evident that this material is extraneous to the article. I thought I was eliminating it.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)