Talk:Khazars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Khazars was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 10, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
January 24, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Khazars is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Introducing new matter[edit]

I removed this:

In opposition, in the Chinese lists of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people contained in the old and the new "Histories of the Tang Dynasty," the tribe of Kosa (Qasar) is referred to as the sixth. In the other important Tang compendium, Tang Huiyao ("Institutional History of Tang"), the tribe Sijie (Siker,Esegels) is named as the sixth one. This contradiction was already noticed by E. Pulleyblank[1] and was finally explained by T. Senga, who showed that both Tanshu combined the list of names for "small" tribes (subtribal names) which were a part of the Uighurs, and the list of names of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people. Summarizing the results of several studies by Japanese scholars, T. Senga[2] showed that the tribe Kosa (Qasar) dominated in the tribal group of the Sijie (Siker,Esegel), which included the tribe Apusy (Abuz).[3]

S.G. Klyashtornyi from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in several of his works[4] considered as the fact that Qasar/Kosa/Khazar are the same tribe and as the fact that the tribal alliance of Qasar/Khazar only partially migrated to the west of the Eurasian steppes(Klyashtornyi 2005, 2007)[5]

Some of this might, in a sentence, be retried. It is unlinked, refers to inaccessible sources, and is needlessly fixated on an issue best clarified on the relevant pages. Generally, I see an indifference to the scholarly format that is the page's standard in several new edits, and the effect is to scar or blight the work done so far. Editors should try to adopt the conventions agreed on for a page.

  1. ^ Pulleyblank E.G. 1956 The background of rebellion of An Lu-shan. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  2. ^ Senga T. 1990 The Toquz Oghuz problem and the origin of the Khazars. Journal of Asian History, vol. 24, No. 1: 57–69.
  3. ^ Pulleyblank E.G. 1955 Some remarks on the Toquz-oghuz problem. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher (Wiesbaden), Bd. 28: 35–42.
  4. ^ Klyashtornyi S.G. 2005 Aziatskii aspekt rannei istorii khazar. In Khazarskii proekt. Vol. 16: Khazary. Jerusalem, Moscow: Mosty kultury, pp. 259– 264. Klyashtornyi S.G. 2007 Runicheskiye pamyatniki uigurskoi epokhi kak istoricheskii istochnik. Vestnik RGNF, No. 4: 30–42
  5. ^ QASAR-QURUG: WESTERN HEADQUARTERS OF THE UIGHUR KHAGANS AND THE PROBLEM OF POR-BAZHYN IDENTIFICATION S.G. Klyashtornyi / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 94–98

Ar means nobles[edit]

Khaz-ars, Bulg-ars, Tat-ars, "Ar-yan" (Ar - horse, Yan - people), etc., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan .

Prester John and Eldad ha-Dani (Also how historic was Eldad ha-Dani?)[edit]

Eldad ha-Dani could have been the source for Prester John, not sure if it fits in the article.

Eldad ha-Dani could have been semi-historic or non-historic and the date is uncertain. But could be correct. It is a messianic text, so some of his stuff can be sourced to earlier texts and he was used by later texts.

Page 455-459

https://books.google.com/books?id=eKceGfr-al4C&pg=PA459&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani++Prester+John&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw97vYpaHNAhXD8CYKHf4EBMQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=Eldad%20ha-Dani%20%20Prester%20John&f=false


page 44

https://books.google.com/books?id=i8NKBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani+date&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRjJGXqKHNAhVIJiYKHWYzBQUQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=mid-twelfth%20&f=false

page 200

https://books.google.com/books?id=TO6q6Je0r24C&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani+messianic+text&source=bl&ots=lImS7IJMfb&sig=n-rS75u_htpoOzVmFRWEiP5XM3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5g97uq6HNAhXHTCYKHQ-cCEcQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=Eldad%20ha-Dani%20messianic%20text&f=false


Jonney2000 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I was prompted to add him here, because in the sub-article on the hypothesis I saw he was mentioned there but the source used did not mention the Khazars, and therefore it was WP:OR. Looking into it, I discovered several sources on the Khazars that mention him, and the fact that the texts attributed to him refer to the Khazars. So I have added that here. Given the problems with ha-Dani, we should keep an eye on that date for his presence in Spain. No doubt there is a complex specialist technical literature on these issues, but I haven't yet accessed or looked at any of it and we can alter things if or when fresher information arrives.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm very cautious about Prester John. I think he's a mythical figure. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would love to make this article less of a coat rack....--Monochrome_Monitor 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


I think the eleventh century Bereshit Rabbati by Moses ha-Darshan is the first of the Eldad texts which mentions Chaldeans, a few different spelling variants exist. This is taken by some as a reference to the Khazars.
The Khazar Correspondence also has an inquiry about the descendent of Dan likely referring to Eldad ha-Dani. I need to look into it more.@Nishidani:Jonney2000 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. This is really worth some investigation, and the page would benefit if you could, with due patience, throw light on the mystery. It is indeed curious that Ha-Dan is cited in secondary sources as mentioning Khazars when, as you remark, it would appear the reference is to Chaldaeans. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, given your deep knowledge of the topic, I was wondering whether you think we could do with an article on Karaites as opposed to Karaite Judaism? Any community with such a long and diversified history, that can boast of the highest advanced literacy level of any other group in the world, surely deserves a people's history? Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Historically Karaites consider themselves to be Jews, both sides regarding the other as heretics. With lots of nasty polemics exchanged. Many Karaites did study under rabbinic teachers and learned rabbinic texts even when those teachers where openly anti-Karaite.
“Two Names of the First Khazar Jewish Beg,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Vol. 10 pp. 241
“Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Vol. 10 is currently checked out and overdue. So I cannot read Shapira’s argument, about the Chaldeans. Or what texts he used.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
My point was that we have many articles on particular Jewish communities with their own traditions, but with the Karaites we subsume that under the religion, uniquely, except with the geographical specificator of those in Crimea (Crimean Karaites). That article does indeed extend to the Karaites generally, but I don't know why the subgroup of Karaites deserves a separate page, while the Karaites themselves are subsumed under the concept of religion. It's only niggling at an adventitious taxonomy for wiki articles on this area, and perhaps not important. Shapira is always a fund of insight. Look forward to getting word of the argument he makes there. Thanks for the research-Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish origin claim as anti-Turkism[edit]

I think this is a borderline case worth discussing. The cited source, describing James Keegstra’s version of the Ashkenazim-Khazar equation, says “… as descendants of the Khazars, a Hunnish, Mongolian people with savage instincts, modern Ashkenazic Jews possess the racial traits of their ancestors and must not be trusted ….” The implied antisemitism clearly consists in associating Jews with ‘barbarous’ invaders. Now whether or not this represents anti-Turkism depends on two questions AFAICT: the Turkishness of Huns and Mongols, and the relevance of the negative stereotype where used as a premise. On the first point, well, maybe: although it‘s not (I believe) strictly correct to call them Turkish—and the Huns seem to have been somewhat heterogenous—our article does discuss historical conflicts with both peoples as background for Chinese anti-Turkism (without references, I note). I have more doubts about the second point: the slur certainly presumes a bigoted attitude toward Central Asians, but throwing Jews into the mix doesn’t in itself add anything—in other words it’s a form of WP:SYNTH to interpret the making of the connection as targeting Turks, at least without a more explicit source. @Editor2020: since you asked the question, what are your thoughts?—Odysseus1479 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you cite the precise line in the text you think problematical. James Keegstra is only mentioned in an article in a footnote.Nishidani (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I’m referring to the (rather clumsy) very recent addition, now reverted with a question in the ES, of “antiTurkism” immediately after “antisemitism“ in the last sentence of the lead, so presumably claiming support from the same footnote. The quotation above is the only passage I found likely to be adduced to that end.—Odysseus1479 07:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well Editor2020's revert there is quite correct. I don't think it needs any justification or defence. Sorry for missing this.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I’m not questioning the reversion (or I‘d probably have undone it); I was just taking the edit as a hint for a potential slight improvement in the article’s neutrality. Boiling the racist claim down to “Jews are evil (and have no business in Palestine) because they’re really Turks“, that‘s presumably just as offensive to Turks as it is to Jews, even if not aimed at them, so to speak. Does that deserve consideration? Is there undue focus on antisemitism where it’s just part of a generally bigoted attitude?—Odysseus1479 09:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how you would discuss this without going quite far from the topic of this specific article, and not sure we would find a source for it, as opposed to just making the statement ourselves?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention Turks as the object of animosity because of the extreme fringe crap by some ignoble antisemitic jerk in Canada, is it, rehashing a dopey piece of bullshit dated to the early 1900s. For Turks, there is nothing offensive in an association with Khazars, at least to judge from what an informed Turkish friend told me recently. In the obscure byways of anti-Semitic rantings, the association is demeaning (which historically in Jewish historiography it wasn't: Turkey took in Jews when the Spanish monarchy expelled them etc.) because it makes, as you note, an overlap between the barbarous Turks and the civilized Jews Just as an aside, if the Jews were Turks, which they ain't, they'd have more solid claims to Palestine than Zionists, since the Turks had ruled the country continuously for 4 centuries right down to the modern period. Just in case you think this last judgement odd, I had in mind:

In retrospect it is all too easy to point out the Arab blunders, their missed opportunities, their intransigence. It is only just, however, to note that it is easy to urge compromise of another’s principle, to urge someone else to give up half a loaf of his own bread. Surely, the Arab argument had much justice. Shorn of biblical quotations, emotional references to the “final solution,” and loaded statistics, the Zionist case looks no stronger, and probably somewhat weaker, than the Arab case to disinterested observers. To the Arabs the demand for an Arab Palestine seemed neither novel nor extreme; it seemed just and in accordance with international practice. That there were two competing “rights” all agreed; but that what had been the feebler, the minority, position could be chosen seemed incredible, Whittled down to basics, the Zionist position was that, given the Palestine dilemma, they would settle for half whereas the Arabs unfairly continued to demand all. It was ingenious, it was evil, and its threw the entire Arab argument into the wrong frame of reference. More devastating, still, It proved effective J. Bowyer Bell, The Long War:Israel and the Arabs since 1946, Prentice Hall 1969 p.67. also cited William B. Quandt, Paul Jabber, Ann Mosely Lesch (eds.) The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism, University of California Press, 1973 p.46 Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)