Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry/Archive 3

Why no studies on Autosomal dna

From what I've seen this article exclusively cites studies on the sex chromosomes of Ashkenazim, which would seem to indicate that most of them bear no Khazar heritage. However sex chromosomes are a very small part of DNA. One can have the R1a haplogroup and still have 99% of his autosomal DNA easily traceable to the Sahara, for example. Are there any studies that take this into account and if so why aren't they in here? déhanchements (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Autosomal studies are cited in the lead/introduction (Behar et al., Atzmon et al., and Shai Carmi et al.) The "Criticism of the Elhaik studies" section also cites autosomal research (including Behar. Skllagyook (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience classification

Calling the Khazar myth not pseudoscience is like calling climate change denial not pseudoscience. According to Wikipedia policy, NPOV is null and void for pseudoscientific content. I assume none of you believe the myth described in the article, but it is important to label it "pseudoscience". BasedMises^{Mont Pelerin Society} 15:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

To make sure I added in the term conspiracy theory to the opening sentence. I've already have reports of other users on here trying to take that down. Aside from the argument that anthropological pseudoscience is always a conspiracy theory - Khazar is often used as a conspiracy theory to disprove Jewish ties to the Levant. Alwaysasn (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Very much. Good source; not an op-ed. BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The editor Alwaysasn has made 16 edits in 9 years, 20% just now on this obscure topic. BasedMises popped up just over a month and a half ago, has just 50 edits, got blocked for edit warring on their field, Austrian School Economics, and suddenly shows up in this obscure nook. This is an area under ARBPIA which is very strict about who edits it. For IPs, the rule is: do 500 edits before engaging here. I'll be reverting the text back to the language it has had for the last several years, since in my view it is inflammatory in its implication that scientists who have entertained the idea are engaging in conspiracy theories and are, in fact, pseudoscientists.

I wrote the Khazar article and the basis for this one. I say that meaning I had to read over a hundred sources, trawling through the documentation for 150 years of thinking about it. It was rarely proposed as a scientific theory. It was an historical conjecture. A notable number of scholars of Jewish background entertained the idea, even in the face of its occasional abuse in mostly fringe anti-Semitic screeds, brushing that shit off as immaterial.

All of the objections do not appear to grasp that elementary fact but, perhaps understandably, are influenced by the WP:Recentism polemics that flared up with the publication of Eran Elhaik's genetically-grounded hypothesis just within this last decade. His theory is argued scientifically, he himself is recognized expert in his field, an Israeli. His approach was challenged by several other authorities and has not taken on, so remain fringe (and indeed, he has successively modified and tweaked it in later papers, with the 'Khazars' disappearing and remaining as the people close to a trade transit area, through which Iranian and northern Anatolian Jewish populations (of whatever origin) passed before melding with Slavic peoples. All this is done with the standard scientific techniques of his field, and is countered by his peers, using the same methodology. So Elhaik is not indulging in pseudoscience: were that so, he would have been academically discredited. And he is certainly not egging on people to embrace a conspiracy theory about his own people. What science does is one thing:, what embittered, frothing political airheads do with it another.

This remains therefore an historical hypothesis, with just one reflex in the scientific literature, that remains fringe. I myself don't embrace it for that matter. One cannot, finally, select one response about some twitter bullshit as defining the field and use it to characterize the subject, per WP:Recentism. In the academic literature down to 2017, leading historians have often treated it and Elhaik's own proposal with respect (Peter Golden (2007), Steven Weitzman (2017), evidence that bitchy squabbles in social networks and tabloid-quality caricatures reflecting them, of complex material should not define the topic. Scholars of that order do not treat with respect an idea that is patent pseudo-science or an obvious bit of paranoid conspiracy thinking. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks. I am auto-confirmed, extended confirmed. I have 600+ edits, not "50 edits" as you say. I ask that you apologize for assuming this. Secondly, by "Austrian Economics" I am not really an Austrian; I subscribe to the new-neo classical synthesis and Chicago School rational expectations/monetarism BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading your edit count, beginning May 15, i.e. two months on Wikipedia, past the 500 barrier and then immediately to this obscure article. How many quotes do you want on the topic of what science is? Science accepts a common methodology, and its results are tested through that. If the empirical data undermine the conclusion of one proposed theory, that does not make it pseudo-science. The rest of my argument stands. The edit is non-neutral, and judgment by a person who shouldn't be editing here, popping up out of the blue to skew this article. I will revert the change, because the text we have, without the hysterics, is longstanding.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not pseudoscience because it was refuted, it is pseudoscience because it is not rooted in science. This is most certainly not rooted in science. Secondly, it is a alternative right movement that has literally zero credibility. There is a reliable source.BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 20:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

If that ia your view, you don't understand how science works. Theories are proposed, using a standard methodology. Those which are disproved, remain examples of science as a method for making models and testing them empirically. This is exactly what was done. By your reasoning, half of evolutionary biology's output is pseudo-science because over the last five decades, numerous theories have been proposed, discussed and trumped by other hypotheses which, to date, have consensus (which in turn is provisory). Elhaik was not engaged in pseudo-science. He proposed a model, whose inadequacies were subject to critique. He, as a scientist, then responded to those critiques, by refining his model. That is what all scientists do.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pseudo-science because it literally wasn't ever intended to be an actual thing. There are many reliable sources that have called this conspiracy theory pseudoscience. I have found a good number and put it in the article. BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 22:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A tyro journalist with a lazy paragraph on a tweet from Qatar, and the notorious Steven Plaut, convicted of libel i.e, falsification to smear, cannot be used to document a theory. Neither of them have any knowledge of the topic.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So suddenly reliable sources aren't reliable because you think they don't have any knowledge on the topic?

There are standard procedures you are ignoring. If you believe a those two are RS and another editor gives good reason to challenge the view, then take it to the RSN board. There is no way Steven Plaut (discussed at RSN see the archives) could be considered reliable for anything other than statements about himself.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"the infamous Steven Plaut". Please set aside your biases. There are a number of RS that show that this is a conspiracy theory. IL BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Infamous also because he edited Wikipedia under several names, one of which was User:Runtshit, and made absurd edits all reverted. Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't do lots of edits on Wikipedia. That's true because I tend to not edit things I don't know about. I added "and a conspiracy theory" linked to an article that was not an op Ed. And then other articles were added as well. Please do not change this again. You can leave historical hypothesis if you need to, but it is also a very long debunked conspiracy theory. Alwaysasn (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Read the warning on the top of this page. You have done less than 10% of the edits required to edit in this area. So you shouldn't be editing the page. You've been around for 9 years, sure, not 30 days, but there is no evidence (to the contrary) that you are anything more than a registered name with a few tickly edits over that period.

You don't appear to know anything about the topic.

You cite now without having read it Behar's 2013 study to back your opinion that the Khazar hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. He and his co-authors never state that. Indeed on p.864 they write:

For example, Behar et al. (2003) suggested that a specific R1a1 Ychromosomal lineage, comprising 50% of the Ashkenazi Levites and observable in non-Jewish eastern Europeans, could represent either a European contribution or a trace of the lost Khazars.

If Behar considered the Khazar theory per se unscientific, a preposterous conspiracy theory he would (like several other geneticists in that decade) never have raised the idea above that it might possibly explain some aspects of Ashkenazi genomic profiles. So citing him is a self-goal. Behar treated it as a scientific possibility, and when his colleague Elhaik tried to suggest one genomic explanation,. Behar replied by arguing the proxy population data was errant. So Elhaik's hypothesis, scientific as it was, was challenged on methodological grounds, and by using a different set of proxy data. That is how science works.

For all of these reasons, and your utter lack of familiarity with the topic or even the related wiki articles, I'll revert your recent edit. Don't edit further here or you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

None of my arguments have been addressed. All I am getting here is silence and reverts. The ideas that the 16 edits chap can edit here because only a 'portion' is related to the I/P conflict is pettifogging. The lead states unequivocally, and this can be shown from multiple sources,

The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in antisemitic theories.

The reason for the 'conspiracy theory' change in the sources is that some Qatari moron attacked Israel on Twitter saying Israelis were Khazars, so any editor pretending that the I/P Arbpia limits don't apply to them is engaged in bad faith assertions. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary of issues raised which have been ignored/met with silence as the reverting continues.

The following sources are cited for ‘conspiracy theory’.

• (1) Behar, Doron M.; Metspalu, Mait; Baran, Yael; Kopelman, Naama M.; Yunusbayev, Bayazit; Gladstein, Ariella; Tzur, Shay; Sahakyan, Hovhannes; Bahmanimehr, Ardeshir; Yepiskoposyan, Levon; Tambets, Kristina (December 2013). "No evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews". Human Biology. 85 (6): 859–900.

As I showed on the talk page (no response, just a revert of this kind of stuff back in), Behar nowhere in that paper mentions the Khazar theory as a conspiracy. To the contrary, he mentions having raised the possibility that some minor components of the Ashkenazi genome might possibility have come from the Khazars.

So citing this is an example of source falsification. Restoring it by a revert once this was pointed out to you, BasedMises, is tantamount to wittingly putting back disinformation you have been notified to be misleading. If reported that kind of behavior leads almost mechanically to a severe sanction. I don't report these things, but if you repeat it, I will.

• (2) this = Unpacked for Educators published by OpenDor Media, and dedicated ‘empowering you with educational tools that bring the best of Judaism and Israel into your classroom,’ using mostly videos.

Egregiously not RS for an theory which has been the object of deep analysios, discussion and debate for over a century by numerous ranking historians.

• (3)Josefin Dolsten, 'Al-Jazeera anchor promitesd anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on twitter,' Jewish Telegraphic Agency 22 August 2019

The title calls it a conspiracy as does line 1 (‘anti-Semitic conspiracy theory’) The text however writes:

The Khazar theory claims that European Jews are the descendants of Khazars, a Turkic people who lived in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, rather than from Jews who originated in the Middle East. The theory has been used by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Scholars have discounted the theory.

The second line is copied almost verbatim from the wiki article, while dropping the cautionary ‘sometimes’. Grammatically however, it does distinguish between the ‘theory’ and ‘its use by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists’ (as our text always has), so she contradicts her own opening assertion by a simplification which crushes the distinction. Who is Josefin Dolsten (a tyro journalist at the time) to challenge the consensus of scholarship, and ignore the detailed history of this theory in Jewish historical thinking laid out in the very page she sneaks her final remark from?

All these bulleted points must be replied to here. But if you have doubts as to there non-RS status, go to that board and set forth your case for independent neutral input. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I found a RS in the form of a scholarly book that delves briefly into the history of Khazar theory and how it was initiated by Jews. The author also quickly goes on to inform the reader on how this theory was quickly appropriated by antisemites and/or antizionists. The initial use of the theory was to determine why and how Jews ended up both in Europe and the MENA region. The theory didn't stick due to lack of scientific evidence yet Jewish detractors had used the initial theory to claim Jews were either simply a religion and not a nationality or simply did not belong to the Middle East historically.

merriam-webster.com defines conspiracy theory as: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

Ergo the misappropriation of isolated pseudoscientific study to prove that Jewish people are attempting to rewrite history is, in of itself, a conspiracy theory. Not to mention other articles and groups who go much further into detail on how Jews (often coded as Zionists) are knowingly, as a group, trying to suppress 'the truth'.

Hopefully, this helps put this dispute to rest. Alwaysasn (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You have (a) ignored, as requested, to reply to my 3 bulleted comments. And (b) the book you cite doesn't state what you wanted it to state.

The chapter in the book you refer to is by James Wald is an associate professor of history at Hampshire College. Namely, James Wald, ‘The New Replacement Theory: Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, and the Denial of History,’ in Alvin H. Rosenfeld (ed.), Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization, Indiana University Press 2019 pp. 3-29. On the page you link to Wald notes that, at the end of the 20th century this Khazar-Ashkenazi meme had all but disappeared from the mainstream Arab press (we know that since Bernard Lewis stated in at the time). He remarks however that, according to Palestinian Media Watch, 2 articles in the 'official Palestinian press' in 2015 mentioned the Khaazar-Ashkenazis theory to delegitimize Israel. He argues on three bits of such information that there is a resurgence of the Khazar-Jews meme. That is very very thin data. It has a topical interest. But it has nothing to do with the gravamen of your claims, that is, that the theory itself is 'anti-Semitic', 'conspiratorial' and, in Elhaik's version, 'pseudoscience'. All you have trawled up is information that we already have in the article. I.e. that the theory has been at times appropriated by some anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to delegitimize Israel.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(2) I have the impression you have not read closely the articles dealing with this. So please read this section and the following one and the lead summary of both which runs

The late 19th century saw the emergence of the theory that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora which migrated westward from modern-day Russia and Ukraine into modern-day France and Germany. Linguistic and genetic studies have not supported the theory of a Khazar connection to Ashkenazi Jewry. The theory still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with considerable skepticism.[24][20] The theory is sometimes associated with anti-Semitism[25] and anti-Zionism.[26]

Once you have done that read the the relevant sections in the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry article. Everything you are arguing about is already covered in both. What you are doing is confusing the historic theory, which numerous scholars have explored, and the minor spinning of this by fringe lunatics, antisemites and a few anti-Zionists. The article makes this distinction using a large array of sources. Therefore it is improper to abolish the distinction those sources draw, esp. by using twitter chat and blips in obscure reportage from time to time to put across that the intrinsic nature of the hypothesis is antisemitic, conspiratorial and unscientific. Even the ADL source you quote denies that.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of content related to Khazar Theory/Myth in relation to its use in antisemitic conspiracy theory

Since I do not have sufficient privileges to edit myself right now (under 500 edits) I will be posting here some content that I believe should be applied to the article in relation to my initial claim that the article abstract should contain the words 'conspiracy theory' as a description of the Khazar Theory on Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry.

I am open to inserting this information where others find it appropriate in the article, as well as keeping the term 'conspiracy theory' at the beginning of the title.

---

In an article for the Pre-Trib Research Center Thomas Ice asserts that"over the last few centuries, fringe groups of Jewish scholars have claimed to have supporting evidence of Ashkenazi relation to the ancient Khazars. "Arthur Koestler... suggested this theory in his book The Thirteenth Tribe,which was never taken seriously by linguists and most other scientists."

Ice continues on to mention that Koestler's proof was a forged document that would later go one to be used by, "circles of propagandists who have an ideological axe to grind...[and supporters of] a supposed Jewish world conspiracy".

Additionally, the Arab national movement has used Koestler's (and others') debunked claims to refute Jewish ingenuity to the Levantine Region. One article on the Official Palestinian Daily claimed that the "idea of four-thousand-year-old Jewish connection to the land "made-up history, written by thieves who fled the Caucasus mountains into Eastern and then Central Europe,... claiming to be Jews""

---

Alwaysasn (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the book from Indiana U press is a good source I would expand based on this source--Shrike (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

First, you are not qualified to edit an ARBPIA3 article. Being notified, you now ask some editor to be your WP:Meatpuppet. (b) You introduce a source which I have already analysed above, arguing that it adds nothing new to what our page already has. You ignored my comment on it. (c) Your reference is wrong. Rosenfeld did not write the passage, but Wald. I pointed this out to you above, and you either didn't read it, or choose to ignore it. (d) Wald barely scrapes by as an expert on this, his academic position is mediocre, and the essay more assertion than analysis but I am willing to concede it might just be used for something but(e) The point you want made from itis already made in our article

In anti-Zionist argumentation delivered at the UN during 1947 Faris al-Khoury and Jamal Al-Husseini used the theory to oppose the creation of a Jewish state on racial and historic grounds. Cecil Hourani claimed that the Arab leaders had been convinced of the value of the argument by Benjamin H. Freedman. Internal British documents seem to support the claim.[57]:129 It would later play a role in Arab anti-Zionist polemics, taking on an antisemitic edge,[58] though Bernard Lewis, noted in 1987 that serious Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political polemics

Bernard Lewis stated that 11 years after Koestler's book. All you effectively want to say therefore is something like. 'Koestler's work has been cited at times by Arab polemicists for the idea Jews (Ashkenazis), as putative emigrants from the Caucasus to Europe, have no historic lien to Israel.' which only repeats what Lewis said, only associating it with Koestler, per that source.

So your proposal is reduplicating a point made, ]]. One cannot list one Palestinian source for 2015 to prove anything or illuminate the reader. They have already been told by the article that Arabs have used the meme, Arab scholars have discarded it and you want to add to that that a Palestinian paper mentioned it in 2015. Shrike's proposal we expand it also fails WP:Due. Articles don't showcase random trivia.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like a formal apology for your ad hominem attack that I am a metapuppet. I came to this site of my own volition to change something that needed changing.

I have thus far given you 2 scholarly sources and requested someone look through what I wrote, not just you.

I understand that this article was yours from inception, but you are now rejecting many good and legitimate sources to back up my claim of adding 3 words to the beginning of the article.

Your counter-arguments on why I shouldn't be able to use my sources is frankly weak. No one here, aside from you, is trying to remove any information from the article, but instead add in information on how this myth/theory is used as a conspiracy theory.

I am trying to be as collected and respectful now as possible but I feel that you are being unreasonable.

I am happy to bring to call a disupute resolution as I don't care for this back and forth and having legitimate sources I and other editors have given and you have insisted to reject.

Alwaysasn (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There. I have put in a formal dispute request. I don't want this to be about personalities. I just want to have this resolved. If a 3rd party can step in and resolve this then there is no reason for us to keep arguing.

I appreciate how dedicated you are to this thread and this article. So I hope we can resolve this in a way that is fair and representative!

Alwaysasn (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being a meatpuppet. Please construe and read precisely what I, for one, write. Since you cannot edit here, setting forth what you think should be in the article, for other edits to add, lends itself to meatpuppetry, i.e., others carrying out your proposals. I'm sure you were not familiar with this implication. Secondly, please note that of the several points I have raised, you ignore them all, and just repeat your position. That's called technically WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I know your position, and have answered it several times. I have yet to see you respond concretely and analytically to the arguments I set forth. This is certainly not my article. Unfortunately I have read very widely on this topic and I judge edits according to whether they say something new, useful, or insightful, or whether, as 99% of the editing here is, the same old political angle is dragged into it. Anyone can do politics - google the word you want sources on (Khazar+conspiracy) and, whacko, there you have a few hits from tabloids. But the article already has surveyed this material as it has been analysed by several major scholars. It would be nice for a change to see editors reading several decent academic books and articles on the subject, and then proposing material for inclusion or editing. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I will ask you again, to please stop with the ad hominem attacks. Not that it is anyone's business but I did major in middle eastern and southeast Asian religious history.

I did not ignore your points so much as you have ignored mine. I have no interest in this back and forth. I put in a dispute to be resolved by a 3rd party. I expect going forward you please stop with the personal and antithetical to resolution type of attacks on the presumed knowledge of other editors on here.

Please allow a 3rd party to come in and discuss. I wish you well.

Alwaysasn (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to edit lead

When reading this article, the broad impression I get is that this is a largely discredited historical hypothesis, only still defended by one scholar against the grand ensemble of his peers, which is often abused by antisemites and anti-Zionists to push their agendas. Its political abuse seems to be an important part of its notability. This is also brought out by the fact that it's tagged with the categories Category:Antisemitic canards and Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews. Why not then change the first sentence of the lead to read (left out refs for clarity):

The Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, often called the Khazar myth, is a largely discredited historical hypothesis that has often been abused to further antisemitic or anti-Zionist agendas. The hypothesis postulates that Ashkenazi Jews were primarily, or to a large extent, descended from Khazars, [...]

This would make it much clearer for readers what they're dealing with, so they don't have to read through the whole article (like I did) to get a basic impression. It may also address the concerns of the editors above, without having to misrepresent sources or add unreliable ones. I think the main reason why the article gets so much opposition is not its content (which is of a high quality), but its tone, i.e., its misplaced emphasis on the fact that it is a discredited scientific hypothesis that has been politically abused rather than on on the fact that it is a discredited scientific hypothesis that has been politically abused. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That is to alter in violation of WP:Due, the minor, indeed fringe status of KhazarMafia spinning of the historical debates. Look at the history of the topic, where, per numerous sources, its fringe status is documented. We have 'sometimes' in the last line to sum up that particular usage, and you want to showcase it as 'often', Dozens of IP editors have relentless tried to change that 'sometimes' which captures what the article outlines, into 'often', and numerous editors, Shrike included, have restored the stable version. People of Russian background might think it fair, since the meme has had a strong presence there but overall, most 'Jews are Khazars' wouldn't ring a bell people, and therefor it won't fly as an accurate labeling of the weight of this crapped out nonsense. Nishidani (talk)

Notice that there are two parts here in my proposed change: 1) to state that the hypothesis is largely discredited and 2) to state that it has often been abused to further antisemitic or anti-Zionist agendas. I believe that 1) is firmly backed up by the article, and since you don't make any argument against it, I assume you agree. As for 2), if "sometimes" is felt to be more reflective of the situation than "often", it's easy to replace the latter by the former. So I propose:

The Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, often called the Khazar myth, is a largely discredited historical hypothesis that has sometimes been abused to further antisemitic or anti-Zionist agendas. The hypothesis postulates that Ashkenazi Jews were primarily, or to a large extent, descended from Khazars, [...]

Again, there's a whole third section on antisemitism, the {{Antisemitism sidebar}} announces to our readers that this article is "part of a series on antisemitism", the article belongs to several antisemitism- and anti-Zionism-related categories, etc., so it's pretty clear that this is an important part of the subject. Why would anyone object to summarizing the whole article in the first sentence? Isn't that just good practice? Or to come at it from the opposite end, if its antisemitic and anti-Zionist use were truly so insignificant as to be barely notable, why do we have a whole section on it? Why do the words (anti)Zionist and antisemitic occur throughout the article? Of course the hypothesis is much more interesting from a scholarly perspective, but isn't its real-world impact much greater there where it is put to political use? Shouldn't any article on a discredited scientific theory that has been heavily abused for political purposes state this fact in its first sentence? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't think you have read thearticle. Both these proposals are already presentin the lead:

(a) Although the vast majority of contemporary scholars dismiss it, the hypothesis has often been argued in the past, and still finds occasional defenders of its plausibility.

(b) The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in antisemitic theories.

You appear to want to hot up the language and make Wikipedia come down on it hard. No. This is an encyclopedia that aims at neutrality. One adds things with detachment and measured language even if they may personally strike one as nonsense. We don't take sides. I think Stampfer's 2014 article silly, since its conclusion is fringe, but I included it because he is RS, for example. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, my proposal reads as a good summary of the article. It's instructive, exactly what a first sentence should be. It makes things clear in a dispassionate and measured way. It doesn't take a side: it says what the rest of the lead says, which says what the article says. If you think it does not, you should point out why it does not, rather than just dismiss it as non-neutral. But perhaps it is better to wait for other editors to voice their opinion? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, we have an artiole that surveyed the evidence and found after much discussion, a balanced lead, which notes the long history of the theory as an hypothesis entertained by serious scholars, and occasionally abused by fringe lunatics, marginal racist drumbeaters and their likes. We note that scholarship's consensus has been that the hypothesis is highly unlikely, that the attempt to ground it genetically failed. Then you arrived here, citing one tweet by some obscure Qatari journalist, and, on the basis of that wanted to change everything in the lead. Challenged you found mention of it in one Palestinian article in a newspaper in 2015. Really, come on. A little commonsense. Nothing you've uncovered disturbs the picture given in our article, which the lead summarizes. They are just a handful of tidbits which illustrate that those who abuse the theory are fringe ignoramuses, as the article states. It's as simple as that.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I think you're mistaking me for the editors in the threads above. I just came to this article yesterday, and I would never ever cite anything based off a tweet. What I'm proposing doesn't contradict anything you say (except perhaps that I wouldn't call Ezra Pound an ignoramus, but let's forget about that for the moment), and is thoroughly based in the article as written. I do hope others chime in. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. It's been an exhausting day. Great poets can be ignoramuses. My wife's uncle interviewed him during the war for a fascist radio broadcast to liberate Corsica and came away with the impression his French harangue was fatuously pompier. Joyce would have approved my epithet applied to Pound: that unhinged bullshit he spewed out, when not writing some glorious passages in the Cantos, was proof it every of what happens to a a poet when he 'ignore(s his) muses'. Have you a source for 'largely discredited'? Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no source needed. The lead summarizes the article. The lead here also says that "the vast majority of contemporary scholars dismiss it" without citing any source, which should be fine given the amount of sources cited in the article. This question was not constructive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it has been standard practice in this area of Wikipedia on contested terms to demand a source - there are infinite threads on this ((West Bank Bantustans talk page recently). So yes, you should provide a source when it is requested. (b) '"the vast majority of contemporary scholars dismiss it" is a paraphrase from a source, but not footnoted in the lead (See Khazars). My proposal is not constructive= So do you wish me to reply with the rejoinder 'Your proposal is not constructive'? The major problem in the lead is citing Xue with Behar. No one looks at that. To pick up your earlier remarks about a whole section on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Those details are there because I took the trouble to forage for them. In the larger context of Khazar studies the leading scholars or those many eminent Jewish scholars who for a century entertained the notion, remain untroubled by rumbles from the lunatic racist fringe.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You know very well that if the vast majority of contemporary scholars dismiss a theory, it has been largely discredited. Really just take a moment to reflect on what you were asking there. Also, I clearly perceive that your concern is that the scholars who have proposed, explored, and defended the theory should not be smeared by relating them to antisemitic crackpots. I understand that. But I'm sure that on consideration, you will see that my proposal does not do that. It's not because a theory was abused by racists that those who hold and entertain the theory are racists. This is not implied. Your concern is valid, but it does not impel us from opening the article with a clear and instructive statement on the nature of the subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, explain to me why you wish to change 'dismiss' with 'discredit', if for you they mean more or less the same thing?Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, their meaning is very similar. Perhaps you think not. Shall I put in my proposal with the word "discredited" replaced by "dismissed" ("[...] is a largely dismissed historical hypothesis that has sometimes been abused to further antisemitic or anti-Zionist agendas")? Seriously, if the answer is 'no' and no constructive criticism is coming forward, I will just put in the proposal. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither term is adequate in my view. 'Discredit' strongly conveys a shameful exposure of falsehood; 'dismiss' a peremptory rejection by authoritative figures. The documented reality is that its merits were discussed to and fro by serious scholars for a century. Koestler tried to systemize it, but his book didn't hold up to close scrutiny. Elhaik took up several suggestions by geneticists, including Behar as late as 2003 that perhaps there might be some truth to it, and worked out a model using proxy data. This was greeted by (a) press hysteria of a highly politicized kind and (b) sober challenges to its empirical viability by his peers. (c) With other top geneticists, Elhaik remodeled his approach. Those books by historians on the topic I have read, as late as Weizman 2017 neither dismiss nor discredit it but discuss it. There is not a shadow of a doubt, as Wexler himself, one of its erstwhile supporters, admits, that the general consensus is strong skepticism. My sole concern here is to ensure that this article doesn't assert that three generations of Jewish and Israeli scholars were dabbling in some mumbo-jumbo, and that Elhaik himself has not been 'discredited'. There is nothing 'shameful' about the theory - it just happens to be wrong in its original formulation, and no longer accepted. 'Dismiss' and 'discredit' in sum are emotive words, more appropriate to the hairbrained fabulists, ranters and racists who, if they ever manage a skerrick of an education, remain totally ignorant of the Khazars, of the Khazar theory's intricate history, and merely brandish a slogan about the inauthenticity of Israel. No one takes them seriously, and scholars have sufficient curiosity to not allow their examination of the story to be garnished with garish haunting worries about the tabloid/twitter crowd's oc casioonal fibrilations. As I said above, in addition, there is a more serious mess with the use of B ehar and Xue that requires attention, not the fact that largely, the hypothesis now lies dead in the water academically, despite its rich and fascinating history in the byways of speculation about Ashkenazi origins.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything you write confirms, like the article itself, that this is a highly politicized theory which is even more controversial because it is widely dismissed by scholars. It's great that our article here has so much to say on the rich history of this theory, but there's absolutely no doubt that the two most basic facts about it (that it has been politicized and that it is widely dismissed) should be conveyed in the first sentence. Now I see why you might not like "discredited" or "dismissed", but where's the constructive part? How should we word it? Perhaps "mostly superseeded"? "largely abandoned"? "largely outdated"? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think anybody would call Arthur Koestler a serious historian, or an authority in matters of Jewish history. The only serious historian who may have entertained the hypothesis somewhat seriously is Salo W. Baron. But my objection to the article in general in its current form is that it goes from a social and historical hypothesis discussed by historians, straight to the more recent and rather unstable new science of genetics. The whole genetics "scientific" current fad is a completely different field of inquiry from history, or social and political history. Even after the recent scientific debate about the accuracy and the merits of the new science get less hot and political and stabilizes a bit in academic terms, the methodological questions regarding how a new science such as this one can interact seriously with the classic humanities' fields of inquiry such as history, society, and politics will still remain. As historians maybe are convinced about the social and historical potential of the new field and do start to make the effort to learn the ropes of the new science, a whole slew of serious methodological questions would then certainly arise. Take for example the interaction between the modern empirical field of economics (which I wouldn't easily qualify as a "science" as such, in itself) and history. After the economic data is collected and analyzed, and even put into charts and graphics, its results do not preclude or dictate the possible outcome of the purely historical and social debate that may ensue regarding the implications of the data collected. Much more so with this new science. Will it simply supersede the purely historical analysis of some demographic issues and dictate the results of the social and historical inquiry a priori, since it is a science after all? I don't think so. But this is precisely what seems to be happening with the introduction of the genetic mess into this historical issue in this article. Associated fields of inquiry to the classic humanities' fields of study, such as archeology, economics, or sociology, do not dictate the result of the historical debate that has to occur after the data is presented. The data coming from these associated fields of inquiry is introduced into the historical debate, and this debate will now try to analyze and use this new data in achieving its own conclusions. That is definitely not what is happening here, where we jump from Salo W. Baron straight to Eran Elhaik and all the political questions about his sientific genetic research. A much more extensive part of the article is currently dedicated to the whole "scientific" carnival going on, than to all the possible serious implications of the historical debate. Among the latter, there are certainly all the possible anti-Semitic implications of the hypothesis since Ernest Renan in the 19th century.warshy ^(¥¥) 21:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No one seems to have noticed that I changed the present tense of the first sentence to the past, signposting that it has outlived its day ('postulated,'). I, for one, have a very large number of edit problems hanging around my head for numerous articles. I usually intervene on one or another when further reading crops up that offers me an improvement. In the meantime, articles like this tend to undergo spates of disgruntled interventions zeroing in one one or two words, and much of this, often IP, editing looks political, or is triggered, as in the present case, by anxieties over a tweet dismissive of Israel. 'Supersede', 'outdated', 'generally abandoned' are certainly good possibilities. I haven't had much free time to relook through the literature for some sources on those, but I will.

Thanks Warshy. My interest is in the genealogy of ideas and that is reflected in the article. The genetic stuff is almost invariably copied and pasted from article to article, often by editors who don't appear even to have looked past the abstracts. You've put your finger on a major eyesore. Your second point is well-taken. So much of European historiography was embedded in racist assumptions that the distinction between historians who pursued a theory like this for its intrinsic interest, and the anti-Semite crowd, not only scumbags on the margins but the Henry Fords of the piece, who jumped on it to attack Jews, can certainly to taken as blurrier than our text allows. But these racist assumptions were shared by the intellectual community united by research interests but, if you will, divided if one considers ethnicity. The case of Renan would require an expansion, sure, but probably on his page: his sharp distinctions and silly divagations on Jews vs Christians are founded on a predominantly linguistic divide and he was, oddly for the time, skeptical indeed highly critical of the reigning 'biological' approaches of the 'race theory' of his time. Compare him to say Arthur Ruppin who should have had a greater degree of the hindsight of wisdom, and Renan's position looks more moderate or even 'modern' in some regards. I must leave it at that: I have a load of work on my plate at the moment. I hope to get back to this. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hope you do one day get back to this, since there's definitely much work left to be done, but you should know that it already is a pretty awesome article. Perhaps the exact wording may be changed later, but I will put in the proposal using "largely abandoned" for now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That specific wording is fine by me, but I do think that leads should not reduplicate. They summarize in sequence. In adding 'that has sometimes been abused to further antisemitic or anti-Zionist agendas' you insert what is at the end of the lead, whose place there reflects the structuring of the article, since its abuse by fringe groups is way down. I'm tempted to excise that second part. It (a) makes the lead open and closing phrases a hammering effect (b) its place in the opening overstates the marginality of the idea (c) and doesn't reflect the proper orderly summary of the section sequences. I'll think about it anyhow. Too0 busy at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Warshy. Just a follow up note on Renan, which was nagging my memory. I looked up Robert Priest's 'Ernest Renan's Race Problem,' The Historical Journal, 58:1 March 2015 pp. 309-330, and found a remark of his illuminating, also for this page (it encapsulates my uneasiness about the WP:Recentism of editors who see some cretinish remark about the KhazarMafia floating on the net, and come here to make that the keynote of the page. he contrasts the admirable Zeev Sternhell's view (Renan a founding father of antisemitism) witn Shlomo Sand's diametrically opposed view that he was the Jean-Paul Sartre of the story, and no racist. He argues instead that these are both mixed up in retrospective narratives that distort proper historiography.

historians should resist the overarching narratives and teleological that have structured previous analyses; they should instead to the generation of Renan's work and its reception among contemporary and posthumous audiences.' p.311

That teleological fallacy invests so many pages one wouldn't know where to begin to fix it. In drafting this I tried to avoid it, with the result that often people has insinuated that I am some kind of denialist or that I really approve of the Khazar theory. Neither. Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In comparison with the notability of the hypothesis purely as a scholarly quest for knowledge, the notability of its political/racist abuse is very much prominent rather than marginal. Not many people know about any of this, but I'm pretty sure that if it were a perfectly uncontroversial run-of-the-mill scholarly hypothesis, it would be a much less notable subject (notable in the WP sense). We may resent that fact, but not negate it: other types of publications exist to explore the historiography of this and all the interesting linkages with intellectual history more broadly, but we are an encyclopedia, and as such our duty lies elsewhere. We need to be instructive. The solution to duplication in the lead is therefore not to remove it from the first sentence, but to expand the last paragraph a bit so as to say a little more than was already conveyed in the first sentence. I've taken a stab at this; please feel free to copy-edit and to add or remove. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing consists also in compromising. I came halfway towards accepting your proposal, even while having reservations about it. Your response was press for a 100% endorsement, arguing in defense of the retention of everything you proposed. Seeing that inflexibility (and I believe a lack of familiarity with the books on the topic( I have edited out the reduplication you created. I cannot recall any precedent for your proposal to avoid the frowned on reduplication in the lead by expanding on the second bit, in the lead. Expansion is always left to the section the lead sentences paraphrase. That therefore doesn't fly. The article's documentation clearly shows it was widely discussed for a century in scholarly circles undisturbed by fringe currents arising in WW1, and illustrated by, other than Pound, only obscure historical figures and racists, though somewhat more so in post Soviet Union. I read Koestler's book when it came out in the mid 7os, and since then have naturally followed the topic. Only with the response to Elhaik's paper in the last decade did I come across several references to the lunatic fringe use of it, which I then researched to highlight in this paper. A lot of readers will be familiar with Koestler, few have heard of the twitter and white supremicist bullshit. I go by what secondary scholarship states, and several authorities, Bernard Lewis and Michael Barkun included, confirm that the anti-Semitic use is marginal. If this rancourous whispering and selfpublished pamphleteering from the fringe had the influence you suggest it had, as having a parity with the scholarly topic in the mainstream, one would find scholars who discussed it down to the last decade duly noting it, making cautions, as they analysed Khazar history. Go read Golden's edited book 2007. Go look at several genetic papers in the last f18 years, by Behar and others. They even entertained the idea of a potential Khazar component down to 2008. All this took place because the rumblings of the Ku Flux Klan and co., or Slavophile racists are way off the radar of what scholars of Turkic or Jewish history or the general public heard about. Most have neither heard of the theory, nor of the anti-Semitic cant.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We mention, for example, Lothrop Stoddard. Well, I checked on a copy of his diatribe 'The Revolt of Civilization' (1922) which I picked up at a booksale in 1967 for 5 cents (highly overpriced in retrospect) , and can't find any mention of Khazars. Just the usual crap about Jewish immigration and Karl Marx. Secondary sources say he mentioned it, but we often have to scrape the barrel to find significant notices of it even in the vast outpourings of racists at that time.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Nishidani, but you seem not engage with the argument being forwarded. It's not about influence, it's about notability. What I'm insisting on is following basic WP guidelines, in casu MOS:FIRST. Something as basic as For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence is not negotiable. It should be very clear here what the one or main reason is why this topic is notable. Just consider, if the theory would not be so politicized, would we have such a large article on it? Would we even have an article on it at all? Just consider the enormous amount of abandoned viewpoints in all kinds of scholarship which we would have to document... It would be impossible, absurd. Yet here we have an entire article documenting from the 19th century onward the development of a historiographical theory that ... almost no one adheres to today. Why is this relevant to have a whole Wikipedia page devoted to it (as opposed to, e.g., a few sentences in the article on Ashkenazi Jews)? What indeed if not its heavy politicization? I would really like you to ask yourself that question. @Warshy: since you have been following this discussion, it would be helpful if you would share your opinion on including a reference to the theory's politicization in the first sentence of the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My impression is you walk past the evidence of the article, and everything I argue. You follow quickly in the wake of an editor who saw some minor mention of a murmur on Twitter from some obscure anchorwoman on a Qatari TV channel about Khazars, and tried to reorientate the whole page into a polemic against the idea itself, in the face of what is documented. This article's lead has been stable for a long time, despite occasional I/P hit-and-run attempts to assert that the word 'sometimes' (anti-Semitic) should be 'often' etc.

The topic is notable for one reason, its long history in scholarly discussions of the origins of the Ashkenazi. As some one who has spent most of his life reading academic works on identity theories, I find it intriguing on that score alone. The German wiki lead does as we do: outline the theory and the last sentence has:'Auffassungen, nach denen ein großer Teil der Chasaren im osteuropäischen Judentum aufgegangen sei, sind umstritten.' Look further and we find apart from the usual details we have, barrel-scraping such as mention that an ex-footballer David Icke believes it. The question you pose is silly. What I did in both the main article and here was to examine all of the available literature I could access to write the genealogy of the idea. That is normative in scholarship. If you personally are uncomfortable with it, stiff cheddar. Its heavy politicization really dates to the last decade, as a reaction to Elhaik's work. I don't rope in other editors, neither should you. Warshy has posted here, has an independent mind, and, if interested, will intervene without prompting.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith. I have nothing to do with previous editors here, or with the bad sources they cited. What IPs and others were trying to do without a decent argument but with questionable agendas is irrelevant. I did argue my case, and my agenda is as follows: I came to this article as a reader. I don't know much about the subject, but I do know about being a reader, and about what we as editors of an encyclopedia ought to do for our readers. It's not that I am personally uncomfortable with anything regarding this article: I'm as emotionally removed from this topic as can be. It's just really about being encyclopedic. What you call normative in scholarship is normative for scholarly monographs, not for an encyclopedia. Here we don't trace out geneaologies of abandoned ideas. We only even barely mention abandoned ideas as minority views. If we do have a whole article about a abandoned idea, it's for another reason. For example, that such an abandoned idea has been abused for political purposes. We do not have articles on just any topic that has a long history in scholarly discussions. If you truly think that this is the main reason for the topic being notable, then we should take it to WP:AFD. Do we have reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage of the history of strictly scholarly discussions about the origins of the Ashkenazi, and the role of this hypothesis in it? I think not. It would fail GNG badly. You don't seem to care about all of this because of a personal interest in the history of this debate. I from my part like that kind of passionate interest for subtle subjects such as that. You should perhaps consider writing a paper about this, or a short monograph. But this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic norms will be enforced; if not by me, then by some other editor (btw, please do invite other editors to this discussion). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So you admit to not knowing much about the topic, and want to summarize the topic differently. All of your suggestions about what we have or do here seem to be personal views based on limited acquaintance with the range of wiki articles

What you call normative in scholarship is normative for scholarly monographs, not for an encyclopedia. Here we don't trace out geneaologies of abandoned ideas.

That is egregiously false, and somewhat deplorable to speak in wiki's name with the plural of majesty. Goodness me, wiki has numerous articles on an absurd and toxic 'idea' whose diffusion had catastrophic consequences, i.e., History of antisemitism. Look at the detail given on the historical background of Economic antisemitism. But more broadly wiki has detailed coverage of theories like theFlat Earth, the Phlogiston theory, Aether theories, Fluid theory of electricity, Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory (I could expand that nonsense immensely, but it bores me); Theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel, or the historical genealogies of sects now lost from view, Gnosticism, Ebionites, or the genealogy of a dangerous smear like Blood Libel (a defective article by the way: the substance of that panoply of accusations derives from pagan hallucinations about early Christians), or of the long history of a prayer Birkat HaMinim, just off the top of my head. So your generalization about what 'we' do is simply invented out of thin air. Wiki has no such programmatic elision of topics referring to ideas/theories or cults/sects inspired by ideas that no longer have traction.

It seems to be your view that this article should be deleted, so take it by all means to WP:AFD. You are the only editor in 8 years who has come up with this objection. So drop the absurd threat that 'this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic norms will be enforced', since the 'encyclopedic norm' you mention was just cut from whole cloth, a fiction. You have the option of also setting up an RfC here, on either aspect or both (a) should the article exist (b) should be consider anti-Semitic aspects of the theory to be on an equal footing with the scholarly exploration of the idea etc.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said in a different discussion I had with Nishidani about the issue somewhere else, this whole "hypothesis" is actually a Jewish invention (by the 11th century poet and philosopher Yehuda Halevi in his book The Kuzari; in my view, that was a fictional book on religion and philosophy) that simply did not work as intended by the author. Its original purpose was to elevate the Jewish religion vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam. However, in a cruel twist, it has just come back to bite the Jews in their asses many times over the centuries since. To make my argument here simpler, let me just state that I believe that without Arthur Koestler this article would not exist on Wikipedia today. And, as the article on his book explains, "[h]is stated intent was to make antisemitism disappear by disproving its racial basis." As the original book had not worked as intended by its author, so too this new modern 20th century iteration of the tale. The intended argument got twisted again and used by those that hate Jews, of which there is no dirt in history, in any century or place. In any case, I believe the issue of antisemitism is at the core of the entire issue here, this so-called hypothesis, and it is actually unavoidable. It has to be somehow mentioned from the start. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the issue of antisemitism is at the core of the entire issue here, this so-called hypothesis, and it is actually unavoidable. It has to be somehow mentioned from the start

Don't bring your personal beliefs to Wikipedia articles. If you have a source of quality (not the usual polemics) that identifies the Khazar hypothesis as discussed from 1808 to modern times as throughout run through by anti-Semitism, bring it here by all means. It is an extraordinary claim, counterfactual, since it has been predominantly discussed by Jewish scholars and writers, none of them known to be anti-Semitic or self-hating.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Disappointing, particularly because you evidently haven't any familiarity with the topic. Some statements above are, excuse me, glaringly disinformed or plain ignorant.

Yes, of course, Kuzari is well-known to be Yehuda Halevi's largely a fictional embroidery. Embroidery on what? Don't take me (I presume by now 'antisemitic' bias) at my word. This is what Simon Schama writes of the dialogue that it is depicted as taking place 'in Cordoba, where the memory of the actual historical moment of this episode, nearly two centuries earlier, was still alive.' (Simon Schama, The Story of the Jews VIntage Books 2013 p.283. If you flip back a few pages you will see that Schama states what scores of Khazar/Turkic/Jewish history specialists affirm, that Jewish Khazars visited Spain to pursue their Talmudic studies and that Hasdai ibn Shaprut launched a correspondence with their ostensible king. The consensus of scholarship is that there was a Jewish kingdom of Khazars, through conversion.

Had Koestler not written, there would be no article on wiki? What my father called 'if my uncle had tits, he'd be my auntie' argument.

From Gustav von Ewers's speculation in 1808 to Koestler's book in 1976, there are 168 years of speculation about Jews and the Khazars, with numerous notable scholars hazarding guesses, making arguments for and against. And none of this is worth noting for a wiki article?

Playing the anti-Semitic card everytime one touches a sensitive argument, is contemptible. Scholarship can't be expected to drag that chain about its feet every time a topic regarding Jews is discussed.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, if we ever have an article on an absurd and toxic 'idea', it's because of something like that its diffusion had catastrophic consequences, not because of its long history in scholarly discussions, as you'd have it. Why are the articles you mention (i.e., History of antisemitism, Economic antisemitism, Flat Earth, Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory, etc.) relevant? Because the history of their scholarship is so interesting? Or because they're relevant from a political perspective/disproven or abandoned theories/a combination of both? You're utterly refusing to get the point here. I said that if the Khazar origins hypothesis were mainly notable for its interesting history of discussions in scholarship, it would be up for AFD. But of course that is not the case: as anyone without your particular kind of blinders on can plainly see, the topic is notable because of its politicization. I believe the editors in the thread above, Warshy, and I agree on that, so this clearly is a case of WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY on your part. As such, I'm going to put this in the article as representing the rough consensus. You could start an RfC on it if you wish. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not associate the Khazar hypothesis with antisemitism. Koestler did, as I showed above, and that was the main source for all my subsequent expressions of "belief" in how Wikipedia should describe the matter, including that the connection is unavoidable, and that it should be mentioned openly from the start. As usual, when people disagree with you, particularly in one of your "pet peeve" issues, they will eventually be accused of having no "familiarity with the issue" whatsoever, or even worse of being "glaringly disinformed or plain ignorant." That is par for the course in these types of issue with you, as I said, and I should have expected it. After having been reading more extensively on the issue since our previous exchange on it, to which I alluded above, I currently do not agree with your statement that "the consensus of scholarship is that there was a Jewish kingdom of Khazars, through conversion." There is still much controversy on the issue, controversy which is always made even more heated by the presence of underlying layers of anti-Semitism always associated with the issue of Jewish origins or ancestry. Therefore, I agree with the changes made to the lead by Apaugasma. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC).

Consensus does not consist of numbers, esp. here with a risible 2/1 vote. This latest imbroglio began when someone with 16 edits, subsequently notified they may not edit here, came in to change the text to highlight the putative 'antisemitic' cast of the theory itself. User:Alwaysasn found support in another blow-in User:BasedMises in to the topic area, with some 600 edits, and no knowledge of the topic either.

Both disappeared. One cannot rewrite the whole drift of an article on the basic of info from a tweet in Qatar, and rumours of a Palestinian article in 2015. Suddenly, User:Apaugasma, though admitting they know little of the topic ('I came to this article as a reader. I don't know much about the subject, but I do know about being a reader, '), stepped in to do the edit the two former editors asked for, changingd the text to showcase anti-Semitism as a core element. Asked to provide a source for the change, they said no source was required, since it summarized the article. It doesn't. It controverts the evidence of the article, which clearly shows the 'theory' has a long and honoured genealogy in Jewish thinking about origins, whereas the racist spin of it is utterly marginal.

Warshy, on request, chimed in with a vote. In the exchanges above, neither has bought any source to bear to warrant the change; neither has shown why a fringe aspect should take equal place with the definition of a theory that, as a theory, never had much traction in an antisemitic literature. Warshy made an egregious historical error, laboring under the misconception (if he had read the article he would have know this) that it all started as a fantasy by Judah HaLevi and his fictional Kuzari. We know that it began some centuries earlier than that, with an historically attested visit by Jewish Khazars to Spain.

None of the arguments, based on the literature, which I advanced have been addressed, but merely walked past by obiter dicta about wikipolicy (non-existent) or personal beliefs, lacking any authoritative corroboration, that the Khazar story is intrinsically anti-Semitic. I've consulted several major histories of anti-Semitism. It just doesn't figure as an important element of anti-Semitic rants. Léon Poliakov, one of the world's foremost historians of anti-Semitism, could write tranquilly in the following terms of what he thought was the consensus in 1956, after 150 years of of arguing about the connection between European Jews and the Khazars.

It is quite probable that during the first millennium of our era the first Jews to penetrate into the territories between the Oder and the Dnieper came from the southeast, from the Jewish kingdom of the Khazars, ort even from the south, from Byzantium. We are not sure about the relative proportions of the two groups; what is important is that the superior culture of the German Jews permitted them rapidly to impose their language and customs as well as their extraordinarily sensitive historical consciousness. .As for the Jews of Eastern Europe (Poles, Russians, etc.), it has always been assumed that they descended from an amalgamation of Jews of Khazar stock from southern Russia and German Jews (the latter having imposed their superior culture)." (Poliakov 2005, pp.246, 285)

It is unimaginable that an authority of the history of anti-Semitism could write that, were the Khazar theory intrinsically associated down to his time with anti-Semitism.

Even after Koestler's book, we cite Bernard Lewis for the view (1987) that

"Some limit this denial to European Jews and make use of the theory that the Jews of Europe are not of Israelite descent at all but are the offspring of a tribe of Central Asian Turks converted to Judaism, called the Khazars. This theory, first put forward by an Austrian anthropologist in the early years of this century (incorrect, Nishidani), is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.".

In short, the change enacted does not reflect what the article documents, but overwrites the material to distort the record. Apaugasma admits he knows little about the topic. Warhsy's bloomer sduggests he hasn't even troubled to read the article, let alone familiarize himself with the relevant period in Jewish history. No evidence has been adduced. Just numbers. For that reason, the change is invalid, and a 'consensus' of two which has no rationale in the text nor the history, is just that, a numbers game, and therefore no cogent consensus as that is defined on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No one argued that the Khazar theory is intrinsically associated with antisemitism. Warshy said that antisemitism and issues of Jewish origins are always associated, but I'm sure he agrees that this always-present association is extrinsic rather than intrinsic: the theory is controversial because of the outside influence of its politicization. The fact that scholars rightly ignore this when discussing the academic worth of the theory does not change the reality that in any more informal discourse, the subject of antisemitism will crop up soon enough. But what was argued above is indeed that the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics (as Bernard Lewis stated). It wouldn't be notable at all if not for its political abuse in some limited circles (and in the somewhat wider circle of official Soviet policy). You probably wouldn't know about it if it were not for that. There would certainly not be a Wikipedia article on it. That's why we have to mention the political abuse in the first sentence. That's policy. Other editors agree. If you think they don't, you can start an RfC. What you can't do, is keeping us busy with walls of text entirely refusing to engage with the central point. Don't cast aspersions, don't call it a number game, just answer the question: if this superseded scholarly theory had never been abused by antisemites, would we or would we not have an article about it? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with Apaugasma again. As for my "egregious" historical mistake:

"We know that it began some centuries earlier than that, with an historically attested visit by Jewish Khazars to Spain."

The authenticity of the Khazar Correspondence has been challenged more than once throughout the history of the modern debate in Western Europe, which really starts with Ernest Renan racial theories in the end of the 19th century. These theories, again, had a very clearly identified and discussed anti-Semitic undertone or motivation. Now, I've said above that I think that without Koestler's book, which does directly associate the "hypotheses" with anti-Semitism, this article would not exist. The key concept here, also used by Apaugasma, is the politicization of the question. Koestler's book was a highly politicized analysis of the question. It had clearly political, both internal (Jewish) and external (post-war European), political goals. But the very thorough survey of the development of the "hypothesis" we have here (even though it gets over-thorough in the recent genetic parts of it), would also not exist without the recent highly politicized history of it carefully compiled by the very controversial Shlomo Sand. So, overall, this is a very controversial issue to begin with, its precise historical details and even its basic historical veracity have been continually contested, and it has also been continually abused by elements with clear anti-Semitic political goals. I think that a clear warning of all the political perils entailed in the history of the "hypothesis" is definitely warranted in the lead of Wikipedia article about it. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

All of what you say is covered in detail in the Khazar article. You evidently do not accept what Golden and others accept as the scholarly consensus. You can repeat your views, but they cannot be reconciled with the evidence set before you in both articles. I take the obsessive raising of 'antisemitic' cries whenever any subject in this topic area arises as a political short-circuiting of rational analysis. Apart from Russia, where Khazar is a slangword for 'Jew' in common usage, most people round the globe haven't the foggiest notion of who the Khazars are, and of theories connecting Jews to Khazars, whereas anti-Semitism is on most people's radar. Apaugasma unfortunately is totally unfamiliar with the discipline of Microhistory, beautifully exemplified in my reading by Carlo Ginzburg. In their ignorance of what scholarship does, they assert that encyclopedias should not indulge in covering it. All I see here is the usual political obsessions that surround the general topic, and the trite recourse to claims of anti-Semitism whenever the topic of Jews comes up. It's utterly boring in its reflexive and boorish nescience, that scythes fascinating excurses on the byways of history by an appeal to irrelevant anxieties of potential persecution. I'm disappointed at the failure to review carefully the evidence presented, which overwhelmingly illustrates the marginality of the Khazar hypothesis to anti-Semitic discourse (as one would expect: a precondition for being anti-Semitic is either stupidity or ignorance, aside from the psychopathology. Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph

This paragraph:

"The hypothesis has been abused at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in antisemitic theories propounded by fringe groups of American racists, Russian nationalists and the Christian identity movement."

Has been abused by editor Nishidani to disguise the fact that it is actually radical leftists who make up a large proportion of promulgators of this largely discarded hypothesis – what are "American racists"? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since most editors recently have no knowledge of the topic, but desire to rewrite the text, just on that adjective I'll refer you to Ronald H. Bayor, Coughlinites and Aryan Nations: Patterns of American Anti-Semitism in the Twentieth Century,' American Jewish History, December 1986, Vol. 76, No. 2 (December 1986), pp.181-196, among several available source papers I haven't used.

Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Finding another source which furthers your argument is a straw man, and only further highlights your agenda. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to even mention the 'source' you have provided is a dud link. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Chronology

As my edit summaries show, I regard it as indispensable here to organize references to Khazars in a succinct orderly sequence, and not, as now with whole paragraphs later down. My point in doing this is simply to show that, despite the energy editors have shown in trying to make out Elhaik is some foolhardy nincompoop with a fringe view, seen in context, it is evident he took up the gauntlet thrown down by numerous predecessors who had either not dismissed the theory or even suggested it might be worth testing genetically, and published his paper. Yes, the population proxy was rigorously challenged in response (as he in theoretically works challenged the PCA theory of those who disagree with him) but this is normal science, not some bizarre anomaly as the popular press skewing of the topic suggested. Anyone feel free to help in this reorganization.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Khazars should not be described as "a multi-ethnic conglomerate of mostly Turkic peoples"

The Khazar hypothesis is of course wrong, but its claim is about not the early nomadic founders of Khazars, who were Turkic, but about Khazar elites hundreds of years later, and their supposed diaspora after the fall of their empire.

Those Khazars probably were not "mostly Turkic" but rather people who had lived in Europe for hundreds of years, intermarried with Greeks, Bulgars, and Slavs, and should not be called "mostly Turkic."

To put it another way, it is a bit like saying Methodism was founded in a "multi-ethnic conglomerate of Norse peoples." The origins of the English via the Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans stops being relevant once they blended together to be English, hundreds of years before Wesley.

In the case of late Khazaria, we don't know if they were "mostly Turkic," and I bet if we did a genetic test the average Khazar we'd find they are a lot closer to Ukrainian and SE Russian Slavs than any Turkic people.

In summary, saying "mostly Turkic" is unsupported and misleading to a casual reader. I would change it to "a multi-ethnic conglomerate founded by Turkic peoples." Declanscottp (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

suggest removal of "at least one study authored in this period diverges from the majority view in favor of the Khazar theory. "

This sentence is confusing and unclear, but seems to be referring to Elhaik but not by name. I see no need for this, as Elhaik has his own section that follows. I would just rewrite it as follows:

The consensus in genetic research is that the world's Jewish populations (including the Ashkenazim) share substantial genetic ancestry derived from a common Ancient Middle Eastern founder population, and that Ashkenazi Jews have no genetic ancestry attributable to Khazars.[cite]

Declanscottp (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, certainly about 'substantial genetic ancestry' (What does that mean? the 3% Elhaik's team came up with, or the 30-60% others claimed?). The line is hopeless misleading. The line comes from the utterly unreliable cherrypicked stacking of articles on this broad topic throughout Wikipedia. The maternal line of Ashkenazi is overwhelmingly European (and in Jewish law that has determining value). The so-called founding event is still undecided:

Before discussing the historical implications of our results, we point out two general lessons that emerge from the analysis. The first lesson is that AJ genetics defies simple demographic theories. Hypotheses such as wholly Khazar or wholly Middle-Eastern origins have already been disqualified [4-7, 18], but even a model of a single Middle-Eastern and European admixture event cannot account for all of our observations, and the actual admixture history might have been highly complex. Moreover, due to the genetic similarity and complex history of the European populations involved (particularly in Southern Europe [51]), the multiple paths of AJ migration across Europe [10], and the strong genetic drift experienced by AJ in the late Middle Ages [9, 16], there seems to be a limit on the resolution to which the AJ admixture history can be reconstructed. James Xue et al, 'The Time and Place of European Admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish History' 2017

Given the rising methodological challenges to some of the core principles used in population analysis, I for one, think that one should exercise patience, until the field sorts itself out.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, let me start by saying I agree that the Xue article that you cite and quote is a very good source. I disagree with your conclusion that it isn't correct to say there's a consensus that the major Jewish populations all "share substantial genetic ancestry derived from a common Ancient Middle Eastern founder population." You are correct that Ashkenazi are mostly European in their maternal line. But the claim isn't "mostly" middle eastern, but "substantially." And Xue's article you quote supports this. Xue's regional ancestry estimate conclusion is "the inferred ancestry profile for AJ was 5% Western EU, 10% Eastern EU, 30% Levant, and 55% Southern EU." (He looks at the data using several different methods, but the results are basically the same. Declanscottp (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

G'day. The word 'Levantine' has an odd history. First one spoke of the southern Levant, the intended meaning being Palestine(Israel as an origin genetically marked for all Jews; then, the word began to be used more generally to refer to the Middle East or the Near East, including anywhere from Anatolia and Syria. The following remark from Yardumian and Schurr's recent paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis, puts it this way.

The most compelling evidence to date of a mosaic ancestry for contemporary Jews comes from the work of Xue et al. (2017). Their admixture analysis suggested a 70% European origin (and within this, 55% Southern Europe, 10% Eastern Europe, 5% Western Europe) and a 30% “Levantine” component in Jewish populations. In making these estimates, Xue et al. (2017) assumed the Levant to be the most likely source for the “Middle Eastern” apportionment of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and, thus, did not make any effort to distinguish Levantine from Anatolian or Babylonian ancestral components.10 As will be demonstrated below, contributions from both Anatolian and Babylonian converts to the genetic diversity of contemporary Jewry is highly likely. Nevertheless, Xue et al. (2017) drew an important conclusion about the timing of admixture as reflected in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes, observing a strong Southern European presence (34–61%) at the root of the population tree, prior to a population bottleneck ~25–35 generations ago. While the analysis was unable to identify the ultimate source population, the founding event for Ashkenazi Jewry almost certainly occurred in Southern Europe (Xue et al. 2017).

Actually that is precisely the point Elhaik has repeatedly made. Somewhere on his blog he noted precisely this defect of Xue's loose use of the word 'Levantine' to cover places north and east of the classical Levant stricto sensu. In any case, Xue's paper is just one, and that judgement cannot be used to suggest a consensus. From Elhaik et al's perspective, for example, Xue's 30% "Levantine" component could be interpreted as evidence equally for Babylonian/Iranian origin. Nishidani (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rabbi Samuel Kohn's contribution to an early, restricted version of the Khazar hypothesis

Rabbi Samuel Kohn (1841-1920) turns out to have been a more important early Khazar theorist than I had realized. His name is not yet mentioned in this article, nor in most other works on this topic. I suggest adding a new paragraph summarizing his point of view immediately after the paragraph about Isidore Loeb. It could read as follows:

Rabbi Samuel Kohn agreed with those among his fellow Hungarian Jews who supported their Magyarization and promoted their acceptance among Hungarians. In order to assert that Hungarian Jews are closely related to Hungarian Christians even on an ethnic basis, Kohn argued in 1884 that Hungarian Jews, like Hungarian Christians, descend from intermarried Khazars and Magyars. But Kohn's theory was not about Ashkenazic Jews as a whole.

You can read Réthelyi's complete article about this at http://ahea.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ahea/article/download/427/791

I don't have an account here and editing the page is currently restricted. - Kevin A. Brook 2600:1000:B109:F67A:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Done Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, good. Your rewording is fine, Nishidani, but I do suggest Wikifying the term "Magyarization" since there's a Wikipedia article about it and there's even a "Jews" subsection on it. I will Wikify that term on Samuel Kohn's page. 2600:1000:B109:F67A:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for overlooking that. Thanks for all your sterling work on the topic. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)