Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Last edits

@Skllagyook: Can you give me a source or evidence that confirms that the hypothesis is "largely abandoned"? Can you also explain to me why the science reporter Danielle Venton is not an "expert" source? Is there a Wikipedia policy that says science reporters should not be cited? or is this your personal opinion? It is also self-evident that proponents of the Khazar hypothesis say that the Khazars fled to Eastern Europe after the destruction of their empire, certainly the proponents of the hypothesis are not so stupid that they do not see the absence of the Khazars in the Caucasus, and now they say that they emigrated to Eastern Europe. --Averroes 22 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Genetic research generally has rejected the hypothesis. This can be seen in the genetics section of the articke (studies by Behar, Koppelman, Richards, Hammer, etc.)l The exception would be Elhaik and his group (though even he modified his hypothesis somewhat in his 2016 study, as covered in the article). Either way, it is a minority opinion. Experts in linguistics and onomastics have also rejected the theory.

There is not a general policy that reporters cannot be cited at all, but as I understand, per WP:RS the opinions of non-scientists (such as science reporters) on matters scientific would not be reliable. She is not an expert in any of the relevant disciplines (history, linguistics, genetics, demographics, etc.).

Regarding the addition of the following text to the lead: "The hypothesis postulated also that after collapse of the khazar empire, the khazars fled to Eastern Europe and they made up a large part of the Jews there."

I don't have so much of an issue with it (it is what proponents of the hypothesis argued), except that it seems unecessary and a bit redundant, since such a migration would already be implied by the text (already in the lead) that states that the theory's proponents believe the Jews of Eastern Europe derived from the Khazars who lived in the Caucasus and Ponto-Caspian steppe (thus, accirding to the hypothesis, they would have had to migrate from there to Eastern Europe).

Regarding the opinion of Koestler, it seems undue in the lead and, if used, would be better placed in the "History" section. Koestler is controversial and it gives undue weight to the opinion of one thinker on the subject (whose arguments regarding Jewish Eaatern European population expansions were challenged by more recent research such as that of DellaPergolla and others). Skllagyook (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: That Genetic researchers refuse the theory because there are no confirmed genetic evidence linking the origins of the Ashkenazim to the Khazars, but at the same time, there is no confirmed genetic evidence to refute this link, therefore, some researchers, such as Eran, argue that the unconfirmed evidence is sufficient to prove the theory, what is your evidence that the number of researchers who reject the theory is greater? and what if that section focuses more on researchers who reject it? Also, there is many historical evidence that confirms the conversion of some Khazars to Judaism, and this evidence is more certain as there are no historians who deny the conversion of some Khazars to Judaism. How about writing "controversial" as many sources describe it, rather than writing "largely abandoned" which is a personal opinion?

So what? What is your evidence that it is not permissible to cite science reporters? Note that the job of science reporters is to write the opinions of scientists and specialists, not their personal opinions.

So what is the problem with the text being clear? Why do you think it should be understood "implicitly"? --Averroes 22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: I was under the impression that you were using the article by the science journalist to support removing the statement that the Khazar theory was mostly abandoned (perhaps I was incorrect and you were not using it in that way). That source would be reliable where it reports the statements of specific scientists (such as where it quotes/paraphrases Elhaik) but not if/where the author herself offers her own synthesis or opinion on the science/topic (since she is not a scientist/relevant expert). (Her article, being from 2012, also predatates later work such as the large 2013 study by Behar et al.)

The majority of research on the subject (including the Behar et al study, with many co-authors and citations, among others before and after) has found no evidence that Ashkenazi Jews have Caucasus and/or Central Asian ancestry (to a significant degree) and has stated that a Khazar origin is unlikely (or refuted)/has rejected the Khazar theory, instead finding that they have mainly other ancestry (from Europe and the Middle East). As far as I know, there have been no contemporary scientific studies (by experts in the field) supporting the Khazar hypothesis (arguing that the Ashkenazi are substantially or largely of Khazar origin) that would be WP:RS (with the possible exception of Elhaik, whose Khazar proposals were widely challenged). Using a word like "controversial" instead seems to risk creating the impression of WP:FALSEBALANCE when one position is in fact a minority one.

The Khazar hypothesis (that Ashkenazi Jews derive largely from Khazars) is very different from the idea that some Khazars converted to Judaism. The latter is less disputed and does not imply that those converts went on to become the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.

Regarding the sentence, "The hypothesis postulated also that after collapse of the khazar empire, the khazars fled to Eastern Europe and they made up a large part of the Jews there."

I don't object to it if you think an the addition of explicit statement like this is an improvement, though it does not seem to me necessary. I have added it back. Skllagyook (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: As any other science reporter, it is assumed that everything she writes are the opinions of professionals, not her own opinion, and she was clearly reports the statements of specific scientists when she said that there are several scholars who prefer it. What is your evidence that she lied and interpolated her personal opinions? Also, she has mentioned the behar study on her report, please check the citation again.

Certainly there is no connection between the origins of the Ashkenazim and the current inhabitants of the Caucasus, and this is what the proponents of the theory themselves say, but they explain this that the Khazars fled from the Caucasus, so the current inhabitants of the Caucasus are not considered descendants of khazars, and they also explain their association with the Middle East is that the inhabitants of the Caucasus are genetically close to populations from the Middle East. Accordingly, the existence of an Ashkenazi association with the Middle East is not confirmed evidence that refutes the theory.

That as far as you know, and that doesn't mean that only what you know is correct, give me a source that support what you know.

So they are ancestors of who? Are they ancestors of Falash Mura Jews or what? Where are the Jews Khazars now? Did they simply disappear? --Averroes 22 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: I was referring to the Behar et al. 2013 study, which came after Elhaik's 2012 paper. Daniel Venton, the science reporter, mentions Behar et al. 2010, but not Behar et al 2013 (which addressed some of the propositions of Elhaik 2012). Here is a link to Venton's article (which is from 2012):

https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1093%2Fgbe%2Fevs129

The statement that modern Jews lack Caucasus affinity because the Khazars fled the Caucasus (leaving no Khazar descendants there) appears to be your own intepretation and is not in any of the reliable sources (the Khazars would have to have been very different from other Caucasian peoples for that to make sense, and that argument does not seem to be present in the sources). The Khazars, both those thay practiced Judaism and those that did not, would have had mainly Caucasian and/or Central Asian affinities (similar to other local peoples). And it is not stated that all fled (some would have abandoned Judaism and remained and others likely were never Jewish to begin with).

It is not the case that, as you said "Accordingly, the existence of an Ashkenazi association with the Middle East is not confirmed evidence that refutes the theory." Behar 2013 for instance specifically finds greater affinities (in Ashenazi Jews) with Middle Eastern populations than with those from the Caucasus. And thus it is concluded that a Khazar origin is unlikely. So far you have not provided and reliable sources (such as contemporary genetic studies) explicitly supporting the Khazar theory, that would go in the direction of supporting the statement that it has not been "mostly abandoned". Can you cite any?

You wrote:

"As any other science reporter, it is assumed that everything she writes are the opinions of professionals, not her own opinion, and she was clearly reports the statements of specific scientists when she said that they are many scientists prefer it."

I don't know that we can make that assumption when no specifics are given. A science reporter is not a scientist and does not have scientific expertise. Nor does she mention who these scientists are or give, names, quotes, or specfics (or how she came to that statement,), or according to whom. This seems to be an example of the synthesis/opinion on the topic of someone who is not an expert in it. We do not know who/what Venton means by "several"; she could have meant Elhaik and his co-authors. And "several" can mean anything from a few (a minority) to many/a lot. Venton is a reporter who covers a wide range of scientific topics, some far removed from population genetics (as seen in this link: https://www.kqed.org/author/dventon) and is in no way a specialist in the field. A vague statement by a non-expert is not sufficient for basing statements regarding consensus/general opinion on a scientific topic. Skllagyook (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Your recent addition of the statement to the lead that "there is no doubt" that Khazars contributed to the formation of Eastern European Jews but that the extent is debated, is also WP:UNDUE. This statement is the opinion of one source (a review of Elhaik and not a study in itself), and it also predates the 2013 Behar study in response. There is no reason to assume that this definitive statement is generally held and it should not be added to the lead nor written in Wikivoice (i.e. in the voice of Wikipedia) as thoufmgh definitive. But the statement could perhaps be added elsewhere in the article, and attributed to its author (instead of being stated in Wikivoice). Skllagyook (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: If what the source says is not true, then where are the Khazars now? You said that they left Judaism and strayed there, but there is no source that says this. The explanation that they went to Eastern Europe is the best explanation for the lack of the Khazars in the Caucasus. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: That is your own interpretation and is not in the sources. They (even Khazar theory proponents) are not claiming that the entire Khazar population abandoned the Caucasus and resettled in Eastern Europe, but that a part of it did. (Also there still are groups that practice Judaism in the Caucasus, like the Krypchaks and Crimean Karaites, but whether they descend from Khazars is very uncertain/debated.) Editing based on your interpretation, and what you think is the best explanation, would be WP:OR (which isagainst Wikipedia policies). The Khazar Empire/Khaganate collapsed, and it and its elite (who may or may not have practiced Judaism) and their identity subsequently lost prominence in the area. Also, the Khazar Empire was a multi-ethnic conglomerate made up of various peoples, not just one, but those peoples would have been mostly of Caucasus and Central Asian origin (the elite, having been Turkic-speaking, would have been of Central Asian origin initially). Skllagyook (talk)

@Skllagyook: WP:OR It has nothing to do with my question, because this policy talks about adding personal analyzes that are not supported by sources to articles, but what I add to articles depends on sources. You said that when I add this information to the introduction, I give undue weight, I am trying to prove to you that this information is important, contrary to what you say. Krypchaks is no longer be existing, and Crimean Karaites is living in Crimea, not in the Caucasus, and a part of them have immigrated to Israel. Also, you're based basically on your own personal opinions when you said science reporters can't be cited. So you think that khazars are simply disappeared? Can you explain to me how? --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: I previously explained why adding the statement that "there is no doubt" that the Khazars contributed to Eastern European Jews to the introduction is undue. It is not the general opinion/is contradicted by statements from other research, and it definitely should not be written in the voice of Wikipedia as though definitive (and, as mentioned the source of thay statement predates the large 2013 study by Behar et al. that investigated the issue). I never said anything about the Khazars disappearing. Your personal opinion that they must have gone west and vacated the Caucasus is not admissable here, and is, as explained, WP:OR (which does seem relevant since you continue to use this personal opinion as an argument). As I also explained, cultures rise and fall, despite nonetheless leaving lineal descendants. The Celtic Gauls of France, the various pre-Roman non-Latin tribes of Italy, and the Phoenicians of Lebanon no longer exist as distinct cultures (their cultures collapsed or were conquered and their identities essentially no longer exist), but they did not go biologically extinct (nor fully vacate their homelands) and still have many descendants and contribute significant ancestry to many people in France, parts of Italy, and Lebanon respectively. (And, as also explained, the Khazar state was a conglomeration that included various ethnic groups, generally of Caucasian and Central Asian origin) which covered most of the northern and central Caucasus (and parts of Ukraine). But neither of our opinions (what either of us personally "think" is likely) matters here. What matters is what reliable sources explicitly say and that they are represented in a WP:DUE manner.

Also, I did not say that science reporters can not be cited. I said that a vague unspecified assessment by a non-exoert (on the state of a science they have no expertise in) should not be cited as though it is authorative (let alone one from 2012). That is not my personal opinion but rather Wilipedia policy. I already explained all of this in previous comments. Please do not disregard my explanations. Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Which statements that contradicted what is written in the citation? other citations said that there is no evidence associated the Ashkenazim generally with the Khazars, but does not negate the Khazar immigration. There is historical evidence indicating that the Phoenicians converted to Christianity, for example, but there is no historical evidence indicating the conversion of the Khazars to Christianity or Islam. You initially used your opinions as an argument to prove that science reporters cannot be cited, and you have used your opinions as arguments other times, don't deny that now. --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22:. You said: "You initially used your opinions as an argument to prove that science reporters cannot be cited.."

That is not the case, and that is not what I said (and even if I had said that, I am not arguing that now). I said from the beginning: "There is not a general policy that reporters cannot be cited at all, but as I understand, per WP:RS the opinions of non-scientists (such as science reporters) on matters scientific would not be reliable." I have since, in following replies, explained and expanded upon this several times now. As I also explained, neither of our opinions are admissable as a basis for editing. What matters are statements from reliable specialist sources. Contemporary genetic studies have rejected the hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews substantially descend from the Khazars, hence the statement that the hypothesis has been mostly abandoned (the non-specific claim from 2012 of a non-scientist that "several" scholars believe in it is insufficient to establish otherwise, especially since her statement was made before the Behar et al. 2013 study, and we cannot know exactly what "several" means in that context). If you have a contemporary study/studies from WP:RS supporting the Khazar hypothesis, you are wellcome to present it. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please carefully read my replies and and engage with what I am saying. Skllagyook (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22:.

Also, regarding this edit [[1]], it misrepresents the source, and is similar to contentious edits you mafmde in the past (and edit warred over). The study clearly concludes that Khazar origins are unlikely. Your addition misleadingly represents the results of the study as tentative or more inconclusive than they were. The study clearly concluded against the Khazar hypothesis. The issue, as you may remember, was discussed here. Skllagyook (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I did not delete the results of the study, the source clearly says that there were difficulties, so I explained it. Why do you think the mention of difficulties should be ignored? --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Your addition is was contentious when you added it before, and is misleading for reasons that were already explained then, here:

[[2]]. Now you are attempting to re-add it against WP:CONSENSUS. Before your addition, the edit already stated that there were no known Khazar samples. But that the study nonetheless concluded that Khazar origins (for the Ashkenazi) were unlikely. As, explained to you before (some months ago), which I will explain again, the study stated that determining the issue of Khazar ancestry had been difficult in the past. But that their large collection of Caucasian (and Near Eastern and European) population samples (much larger than before) sought to remedy this difficulty. And, having used their large collection of samples, they conclude against the Khazar hypothesis. To add the statement that determining whether Ashkenazi Jews are of Khazar origin is difficult because of a lack of known samples misrepresents what the study says/concludes in ther final analysis (which is that due to their large collection of samples, it is now less difficult, and that a Khazar or other Caucasian origin is unsupported.). Skllagyook (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Also, you didn't answer all my questions I asked you before, which statements that contradicted what is written in the citation? other citations said that there is no evidence associated the Ashkenazim generally with the Khazars, but does not negate the Khazar immigration. There is historical evidence indicating that the Phoenicians converted to Christianity, for example, but there is no historical evidence indicating the conversion of the Khazars to Christianity or Islam. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Whether the Khazars immigrated or not, or where they went, the sources do not support the claim that there is no doubt that the Khazars contributed to contemporary Ashkenazi Jews, nor do they support your removal of the statement that the Khazar hypothesis (which again posits that the Ashkenazi are substantially Khazar) has generally been abandoned by scholars. Please read my last several replies to you if you have not (I left several recently in rather close succession, perhaps you did not see all of them.). Please read all of the thread. I have attempted to explain in detail my issues with your additions. Skllagyook (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Please check the source well, the large collection of samples was to solve the limited genetic data, not to solve the lack of known Khazars' descendants. --Averroes 22 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: And the purpose of that was to investigate the theory of Khazar origins for Ashkenazi Jews. The conclusion/result of the study was against that theory. Skllagyook (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: So did you see me deny that result? I will ask again, why do you think the difficulties they faced should be ignored or not mentioned?

@Skllagyook: Please specify for me exactly, where are the sources that do not support the addition or contradict it? Why do you think that this source is not enough and that other sources should support it? Note that other sources attempt to discuss the origins of the Ashkenazim in general, but do not deny the Khazar immigration. --Averroes 22 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: As I explained, whether Khazars left the Caucasus or not, does not answer the question of whether the Khazar hypothesis is accurate. The hypothesis is the idea that the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars. The majority of research concludes against that position (and thus does not support the Khazar hypothesis). (If they migrated out, that would not necessarily mean the Ashkenazi are descended, or significantly descended, from them.) It could be that Khazars did immigrate but were not ancestral (or substantially so) to Ashkenazi Jews, in that case the Khazar hypothesis would still not be true (and editing according to assumption that the former necessitates the latter would be WP:OR). And some researchers, such as Shaul Stampfer (mentioned in the "History" section of the article) contest the idea of the Khazar conversion to Judaism to begin with (and if it did occur it would have only involved a part of the population).Skllagyook (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Exactly, that's what I meant, it's seem that you thought I added that in order to support this theory, but what I mean is that the Khazars have emigrated, but they may were not ancestral, or their contribution was little to the Jews of Eastern Europe, so that the Khazar immigration isn't contradicting with the sources that say the Khazar hypothesis is not correct, do you think it is justified to add that information now? --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: What information are you proposing adding/do you want to add? Skllagyook (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: The information I have put here, but apparently you misunderstood it and thought it contradicted the sources that say the Khazar hypothesis is incorrect. --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: That addition says:

"While there is no doubt that the Jewish Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and contributed to the establishment of Eastern European Jews, the extent of this contribution has been debated."

It states that "there is no doubt that the Jewish Khazars contributed to the establishment of Eastern European Jews" which clearly does claim the Khazar hypothesis is correct (or somewhat correct) and it does so in Wikipedia's voice as though it were consensus. I explained the problems with this earlier. Also, as mentioned, it is not even agreed upon that Jewish Khazars fled to Eastern Europe or that a significant number of Khazars were Jewish to begin with (though that at least appears to be less controversial than the idea that they substantially contributed to Eastern European Jews). Skllagyook (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: No, this does not necessarily mean that the Khazar hypothesis is correct. The Khazars certainly emigrated and did not simply disappear, but the fact that they emigrated does not necessarily mean that they themselves founded the Ashkenazi ethnic. This is seem to be your personal opinion, since it seems that the fact that the Khazar Jews immigrated is enough to prove the theory to you, but it may not be enough for others. --Averroes 22 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: It does say that. It clearly says that "there is no doubt that the Jewish Khazars contributed to the establishment of Eastern European Jews" meaning that Ashkenazi Jews have Khazar ancestry, not just that Khazars migrated. I explained the issues with this. Skllagyook (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Oh, I have finally understand what do sources mean, it seems that Ashkenazi Jews have a Caucasian and middle eastern origins, to be sure, please read behar study again, he doesn't completely denied the Caucasian origins, this mean that there is no doubt that Khazars Jews didn't disappear and emigrated to eastern Europe, then they mingled with other Jews there, but the problem is in the extent of their contribution to the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, meaning is: were the Khazar Jews the majority and contributed greatly to the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, or were they a minority and did not have a significant impact on the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews? The answer of this question is what Bihar, Eran and others argue for. --Averroes 22 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: You do not seem to understand. Behar (Behar 2013) does not say that Ashkenazi Jews have Caucasian and Middle Eastern origins. He (and his co-authors say that they have mixed Middle Eastern and European origins but that there is no evidence that they have Caucasus ancestry (and that they show no signs of having it). The statement (from your 2012 source reviewing Elhaik) that there is no doubt that Khazars contributed to Ashkenazi Jews is from a source that came before the Behar 2013 study. The Behar 2013 study does not agree with that idea (there are other sources cited here that also do not agree). That is why the statement is undue and should certainly not be added to the lead in Wikipedia's voice as though most scholars agree with it. I explained this before. Please re-read my replies.

Here is a quote from Behar 2013:

"Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region." https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/41/

Skllagyook (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Notice that he said "and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region," notice that he said "significant genetic contribution", and he doesn't said "any genetic contribution", this indicates that there are a contribution of the Khazars, but it is not a significant contribution. Finally, I would like to ask, where are the Khazars now? --Averroes 22 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: It does not indicate that there is a contribution from the Khazars. That is not stated anywhere in the study. The study, on the contrary, specifically says:

"With the inclusion of the new data from the region of the Khazar Khaganate, each of a series of approaches, including PCA, spatial ancestry analysis (SPA), Bayesian clustering analysis, and analyses of genetic distance and identity-by-descent (IBD) sharing continues to support the view that Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region."

And:

"Analysis of this large data set does not change and, in fact, reinforces the conclusions of multiple past studies, including ours and those of other groups (Atzmon et al. 2010; Bauchet et al. 2007; Behar et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012; Guha et al. 2012; Haber et al. 2013; Henn et al. 2012; Kopelman et al. 2009; Seldin et al. Genetics of Ashkenazi Jewish Origins / 8852006; Tian et al. 2008). We confirm the notion that the Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews share substantial genetic ancestry and that they derive it from Middle Eastern and European populations, with no indication of a detectable Khazar contribution to their genetic origin." (Pages 184-5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264390976_No_Evidence_from_Genome-Wide_Data_of_a_Khazar_Origin_for_the_Ashkenazi_Jews The 2013 Richards study (quoted in the article) also stated that its findings (on maternal lineages) contradicted the Khazar hypothesis and found no evidence of Caucasiam origins. Skllagyook (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I'm not saying that the source says it directly, but if what this source says is compared with other sources, what I'm saying makes sense to a large extent. I want to ask too, why the study used "significant" instead of "any"? and where are the khazars now? And which of your quotes contains a text that denies any origin from the Caucasus? --Averroes 22 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: If the source does not say it directly, adding it is WP:OR. Per, policy, we only add material that is explicit/directly stated in the sources. The source does say that there is no evidence of Caucasus ancestry in the Ashkenazi (please read the quotes from the study I just added above), not only no significant Caucasus ancestry ("...continues to support the view that Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region."). And it is not the only source that says that. Your opinion of what makes sense is not relevant. We edit based on the sources, not on out own opinions of what makes sense. Likewise, my personal opinion on where the Khazars are now (as you keep asking me) is not the point. The point is what the sources say.

You wrote: "but if what this source says is compared with other sources, what I'm saying makes sense to a large extent."

That sounds like WP:SYNTH, which isa form of WP:OR (editing based on your synthesis/personal reasoning from more than one source, which is against Wikipedia policy). Anyway, ou aplear to be mistaken aboug what Behar 2013 says. Skllagyook (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You did not give a single evidence confirming that what I am saying is incorrect, I am trying to explain to you what the sources mean, and I do not write my personal opinions, and if you do not understand the sources in this way, it will seem to you as if the sources contradict each other, and this contradiction results from a misunderstanding of the sources. --Averroes 22 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: It is not up to us to interpret what the sources mean (that would be WP:OR). It is our job as editors to report only what the sources directly say. Behar 2013 (and other sources) do in fact contradict the one review essay you cited claiming that there is no doubt that the Khazars contributed to the Ashkenazi (even most studies that proposed it were not that certain). That is because the Behar et al. Study is not in agreement with that statement. Sometimes sources do contradict. And in this case, the contemporary sources are mostly against the idea that Khazars genetically contributed to ancestry of the Ashkenazi (or at least against the idea that there is any evidence they did). I have already explained this many times and I feel that you are not engaging with what I am saying. It is clearly very WP:UNDUE to add to the article that "there is no doubt" that the Ashkenazi have Khazar ancestry/admixture (as though that were generally agreed upon, when it clearly is not). I'm afraid don't understand what you are missing. Skllagyook (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: This policy WP:SYNTH or this policy WP:OR have nothing to do with us, because this policy is talking about adding personal analysis which sources don't mention to the articles, but what I want to add to the article is mentioned clearly in the source. This policy WP:UNDUE also has nothing to do with us, because these speak of giving undue weight to the views, but what I want to add is beyond doubt, and certainly the Khazars have not simply disappeared. If what I'm adding is contradict with behar study, so why the study used "significant" instead of "any"?--Averroes 22 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: You are trying/proposing to add a statement that claims that "there is no doubt Ashkenazi Jews have Khazar ancestry (as though it is generally agreed upon) based on one old source, when other, often more recent, and better quality sources (Behar, Koppelman, Richards, etc.) which are studies with many citations, do not agree with that statement. It is NOT generally agreed among scholars that "there is no doubt" that Eastern European Jews have Khazar ancestry. It is not generally agreed upon. There IS doubt (a lot of doubt according to some, including Behar). It should not be added to the lead in Wikipedia's voics as though most scholars agree on it. They do not. Adding it there in Wikipedia's voice (like it is an indisputed fact) implies that it is generally agreed upon, when it is not. I have already explained this several times. I have given you quotes from Behar. Behar (whose study is more recent than the source you want to add) did not find evidence of Caucasus ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews. You are trying to use you own reasoning to argue that your source and Behar agree somehow, but they do not agree according to what Behar actually says. The attempt to harmonise sources based on your own reasoning is WP:OR.

The source you want to add (which is old and not even a study) claiming that there is no doubt Khazars contributed to Ashenazi ancestry, is clearly in conflict with other sources (like Behar 2013). The source you want to add to the lead is one single source that other sources do not agree with, and it does not represent the current general opinion of geneticists. Behar's (more recent) results do not agree with that position. That is why it is not appropriate to add to the lead (the introduction) that there is no doubt that the Khazars contributed to Eastern European Jews (as though that were a generally agreed upon fact, when it is not a generally agreed upon fact). Do you understand what I am trying to explain? I'm not sure what you are not understanding

The quotes from Behar I gave above did not only say there was "no significant" Caucasian ancestry in Ashenazi Jews.

Behar et al. also said "that Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews share substantial genetic ancestry and that they derive it from Middle Eastern and European populations, with no indication of a detectable Khazar contribution to their genetic origin."

The study found no detectable indication of a Khazar contribution.

Behar also (in the study) says that the study "...continues to support the view that Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region."

"Not from the Caucasus region" meaning that their study suports the view that Ashkenazi Jews do not have Caucasus ancestry.

These quotes (which I quoted before) are in contradiction with the statement that there is no doubt that Khazars contributed to Ashkenazi Jews (and they are not the only statements like that in the study). Behar did not detect any Khazar contribution and also stated that "Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region." This is not in agreement with the position that there is no doubt that the Ashkenazi have Khazar ancestry. There clearly is doubt. The "no doubt" statement is not generally agreed on not be added to the article as though it is.

I feel as though you are not reading my replies. Please try to read them fully. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: No, I read it all, but you don't convince me, behar study doesn't completely denid the the Caucasian origin, but he said their origin most to be Middle Eastern than to be Caucasian. If what I'm adding is contradict with behar study, so why the study used "significant" instead of "any"? --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: The quote that says "no significant is from the abstact (the introduction), but there are other quotes. As I showed before, the study also says that there is "no indication of a detectable Khazar contribution to their genetic origin." and "Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region." (Not just that they are more Middle Eastern than Caucasian but that there is no evidence of a Khazar contribution or Caucasian ancestry). That clearly is in conflict with the view that there is no doubt of a Caucasian origin/Khazar ancestry (there is certainly doubt at the very least). Behar did not find Caucasian ancestry in them at all. The quotes ard clear. What is your objection? Skllagyook (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Hey, do you think me stupid or what? Where does the study mentioned that? --Averroes 22 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: I'm not sure what you mean. The quotes I gave in my last reply are from the study (Behar 2013). This one is from pages 884-885:

"We confirm the notion that the Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews share substantial genetic ancestry and that they derive it from Middle Eastern and European populations, with no indication of a detectable Khazar contribution to their genetic origins."

And from page 865:

"Our study is the first to integrate genomic data spanning the Khazar region together with a large collection of Jewish samples. With the inclusion of the new data from the region of the Khazar Khaganate... continues to support the view that Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry derives from the Middle East and Europe, and not from the Caucasus region."

These are direct quotes from that study that state that no Caucasus ancestry was found and also "no indication of a detectable Khazar genetic contriution."

Here is the full study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264390976_No_Evidence_from_Genome-Wide_Data_of_a_Khazar_Origin_for_the_Ashkenazi_Jews

Skllagyook (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, Behar et als., own data on the localization of Ashkenazim 's ancient admixture proportions compared to neighboring populations places them not quite in the classic 'Middle East' but on both sides of the Bosphorus and environs. They refuse to share the data base on which their conclusions were based.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Your edit (to the lead re Behar and the movement of the other material) is an improvement (over your earlier edits). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I'm happy that we finally arrived to a solution that satisfies all parties. --Averroes 22 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Looking over the source (Science Daily) from which you took the statement that there is no doubt that the Khazars contributed to the Ashkenazi, I am uncertain whether it is a reliable source WP:RS in this context. The source of the statement does not appear to be a scientist. It is instead a source of popular journalism (not a scholarly journal). It is clear who the author is. Thus the opinion that there there is no doubt that the Khazars contributed to the Eastern European Jews may be an unqualified opinion, and seems to be possibly WP:UNDUE even in the place you moved it. Thus it seems that I may have been mistaken to agree to its retention here (but am unsure). It would be helpul to know who the author was and what kind of background they had (I will try to look into that). Here is the Science Daily link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDaily Skllagyook (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, ScienceDaily is not a reliable source. It's churnalism. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I suspected as much. The founders of Science Daily, though they may have some affiliation with the biological sciences generally, do not seem to have a background in genetics. I will look more into churnalism. In that case, the addition (citing Science Daily) should be removed from the Genetics section. Skllagyook (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: The fifth Paragraph of section of Genetic Studies quotes from the Jewish Voice newspaper, apparently not a reliable source. --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: It depends what is being quoted. For instance, if it's quoting the opinion/statement of a researcher it is likely reliable. That article is quoting the scientist Martin B. Richards. [User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: If it is really quoting from a statement from a specialist, we will replace the source for the Jewish Voice magazine with the website of the university/research center in which that specialist works. If you have another source, put it. --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: That is not necessary. It is a reliable source on the opinion of the specialist/scientist it is quoting (the article explicitly attributes the statements to the scientists Richards and Ostrer). The other source was not reliable because the quote from it that was used from it came from the journalist's opinion and not the scientist it was discussing. Skllagyook (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: So how can we be sure that this specialist/scientist is really stated this? --Averroes 22 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: Journalistic sources are considered reliable (per Wikipedia policy) on the events and statements they report. Whether or not you doubt that the person quoted said what was reported is not a reason to exclude a source (otherwise we would have remove all journalistic articles quoting people and all information from interviews) - as you know, we don't edit based on personal opinion. There is a problem when one relies on statements on a specalised topic made by a non-specialist like a journalist's opinion on science that is not attributed to a specialist (which is not the issue here).

This is the full quote from the article (quoting thr Richards and Ostrer):

"The finding should thoroughly debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, Richards and Ostrer said."Skllagyook (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I see the language of "largely abandoned" has been previously challenged. WP:BURDEN requires this be properly sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I hope you don't mind my moving your post to the end of the thread. Its position in the middle of an exchange with someone else seemed a little strange and would make it very hard to find and reply to.

It was previously challenged by one user, but as I explained to them in the discussion here, the Khazar hypothesis (i.e. the idea that the Ashkenazi are largely of Khazar origin) is rejected by the majority of relevant experts (including most geneticists who have published on the subject, historians, and linguists). This is sourced in the body of the article and in the lede. Thus "largely abandoned" is accurate. Skllagyook (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to reflect the language used in reliable sources - the lead I edited was replete with colourful, almost chatty language that simply did not sound like the introduction to an encyclopedic entry. I see but a single source using the word "abandoned" (no largely) in the article, and that is from Bernard Lewis in 1987, making it a fairly outdated statement preceding most of the genetic studies on the subject, and definitely the one put forward by Elhaik in 2012. That is far from ideal. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I don't see how "largely abandoned" is chatty or encyclopedic. It seems accurate and informative given that the majority of relevant scholars (including geneticists) do not currently support and reject the theory. Elhaik may have supported it (albeit in a modified form). But his view was and is a minority one. That an idea is largely abandoned does not preclude there still being some proponents of it. Rather it means that they are in the minority, which is true in this case (among relevant experts). It would be inaccurate to call it "entirely abandoned". But we are not doing that nor would I propose such. But to remove the wording that is there would likely contribute misleadingly to the impression that the Khazar hypothesis is more accepted than it is, thus being WP:UNDUE and violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. One might perhaps propose some other/alternate wording along the lines of "The Khazar hypothesis has not been supported by most scholarship.", "The Khazar hypothesis is not supported by the majority of recent scholarship." , or even possibly as "a mostly rejected historical hypothesis" if you consider it preferable. But such a replacement seems to me unnecessary and seems to convey the same idea less concisely (at least the first two proposals would). The current wording seems to communicate its status as a hypothesis that is mostly rejected in a concise and accurate manner early in the article.Skllagyook (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of a lead should just state what a thing is, here a theory, not apply value judgement statement to it, which is a gross violation of NPOV. The only source that semi-supports this wording is wildly out of date. That the theory is not supported by the genetic evidence was still amply stated in the lead following my edit. At the same time, the actual article notes the huge unpredictability of genetic studies. Genetic science is still very young, flawed and coloured by bias. To quote the article: Summing up the results in 2015, the Yiddish scholar Alexander Beider stated that genetic studies often resulted in contradictory outcomes, complicated at times by the political or religious views of some researchers. As also noted, here, there is no clear population of supposed Khazar-descent to even study, adding further challenges. So the rather daft lead is a combination of a POV-y opening statement supported by an out-of-date characterisation of the theory (Lewis, 1987) that preceding all of the theoriy's genetic assessments, which themselves are by nature somewhat uncertain in their conclusions and remain contested. It's a disordered mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Several genetic studies (some covered in the article) have explicitly rejected the Khazar hypothesis. I think that (and other recent scholarship) is what supports the statement more so than Lewis. This includes the 2013 study by Behar et al., which, despite not having a clear Khazar population to test (which the current edit mentions), found no affinities between Ashkenazi Jews and (their large and diverse samples of) the populations of the Caucasus and Central Asia (where the Khazars lived and originated) and explicitly stated that the Khazar hypothesis was very unlikely. Your edit also removed that information which, was relevant and important. Also, Alexander Beider does not support the Khazar hypothesis. Later in the article he is quoted (accurately) as rejecting any Khazar or Turkic influence on Yiddish in an article by him entitled "Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars. Here's the Proof".

The first sentence of a lede should sum up what a thing is. And in my opinion this one does. The thing in this case is a hypothesis that is supported by a minority of researchers (e.g Elhaik) but rejected by the majority (i.e. "largely"). There is nothing POV about stating this there. Skllagyook (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, the first sentence absolutely does not say what the hypothesis is. It is a truncated POV colour statement about it being "largely abandoned" - an unsourced wording most closely resembling Lewis' 1987 conclusion based on the historical elements of the theory, not the genetic ones. Then and only then, in the second sentence, does the lead actually explain what the hypothesis is. As far as I can see "majority" is another word that does not appear anywhere in the current text summarizing the weight of the scholarship for or against the theory - so, like the language of "largely abandoned", this would appear to be a form of editorial WP:SYNTH. We can't just add up studies and claim an academic "majority" - we need a source stating this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Short description

@Skllagyook, @Jeppiz: I'd like the reason why you both reverted this edit restored a short description well in excess of 40 characters in defiance of the WP:SHORTDESC guideline. Despite being made in a clearly separate edit, this was reverted without clear explanation. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, contrary to what you say (no doubt in good faith but without having verified), it was not a separate edit. You made this single edit which is the only edit of yours I've reverted. Jeppiz (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: That was my revert, not the original edit, here [3]. Just because @Skllagyook reverted multiple edits together with inadequate explanation does not mean you are not obliged to follow suit, and you could have performed a partial revert. That other editors did something is not a justification. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, well, the problem here is that you reverted back in the first place. After your original edit had been reverted by Skllagyook, you should not have reverted to reinsert it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I reverted partly because @Skllagyook's revert was poorly explained, and partly because it rolled together changes that were entirely unexplained, such as reverting the changes to the short description - something that I explained in my revert, but which neither of the other reverts did. You still haven't explained why you reverted all of it or weren't able to perform a partial revert. I very much hope you didn't blind revert simply to make a point. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323. I did not revert you "to make a point", but I will make a point now: You have already been topic banned once from this topic area; your actions today make me wonder whether that topic ban should not be reinstated. You have edit warred in the same 1RR area from you were already banned, and now you're being very argumentative (including the entirely unwarranted warning you posted at @Skllagyook's talk, and now arguing that others should go through partial reverts when you're the one who whole-reverted. Drop the stick. Now. Jeppiz (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I posted a DS alert, which is something that should be posted on the talk pages of all editors that are new to a conflict area. I'm going to ignore the rest of this post, which borders on personal attack. So you have no reason for reverting the short description then? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I found the short description you suggested less accurate than the one in the stable version. Jeppiz (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Then perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative short description of around 40 characters (instead of 79) to abide by WP:SHORTDESC - simply reverting to a version that fails the first hurdle for a short description (being short) is not constructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend 'fringe theory of Jewish descent from Khazars'. Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Without the 'fringe' that's what I put - I don't think 'fringe' usually appears in short descriptions - I can't see it for any other 'fringe theories', and there is obviously the more general point that any theory is theoretically 'fringe' until proven or disproven. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)