Jump to content

Talk:Khazars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Use of the Label "Anti-Semite"

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

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

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

I think that people insisting that the majority of modern Ashkenazi are all Khazars and therefore are not entitled to live in Israel are anti-Semitites, especially since it has been disproven genetically. As well as the fact that nearly every anti-Semetic and neo-Nazi website denounces Askenazi Jews as "Khazars". As for the word "Semite" being applicable to Arabs as well as Jews, well, the English language rarely makes sense. The word "Cunt" was allegedly once a term of respect for wise women, it doesn't change the fact that its a vicious insult today. Arguing semantics is pointless. Oh, by the way Barkmoss, please sign your posts using for tildes instead of just typing your username and the date. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page. Asarelah (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Khazars or not, the entitlement to live in Israel is dependent on Israeli immigration law only and all claims on the land based on history, "history" or certain holy books are plain stupid; personally I think that all genetic studies on the subject - especially, but not only, those coming from the US or Israel - are highly doubtful, I'd trust a Chinese, an Indian or Mongolian(for example) study but they are not showing interest in the subject. The looks of most Jews I know hardly support the claim that they have little mixed with the host populations - light hair and blue eyes are not the signature trait for a true Semite, are they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.73.246 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you mean to say that someone is prejudiced, then you should just say that. Calling people names is just mean.

If you aren't going to treat people with respect, then you shouldn't expect them to treat you with respect. Barkmoss (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cohanim DNA?

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

POV problems

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

  • It seems to me that the best solution to this debate is to move the entire thing to a page of its own, and include a brief summary and cross-reference here. Claims are made of connections between the Khazars and this or that modern ethnic group, but the evidence is apparently either inconclusive or absent. We can have a stable article on the Khazars without subjecting it to reversion wars. If the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory is given its own page, it will be clear that it is a theory, not an "established fact" (whatever 'that' means). If, then, someone else wants to pull together all the discussions about connections between the Khazars and some 'other' ethnic group, like one of those named in the present article, let them. I think it will all make for interesting reading. It should not be absent from Wikipedia entirely - just moved off this page. Any other thoughts, anyone? Cbdorsett (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
While I do not disagree with a separate page - it might serve to take some of the noise off this page - I do have to say that I think the move will be seen to more enshrine the theory as a fact, not the other way around. FlaviaR (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Genetics can always be moved back here when the issue is definately settled. Until then the subject is only worth a short summary here and is best left to an article of it's own detailing the current state of research. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to move the debate about Khazar-Ashkenazi theory into its own article. This article should focus on the Khazars not on any possible descendants. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

WLRoss, you claim you have "no personal bias as my editing history will show". Yet your edits indicating that Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 attacks,[1], were culpable in the Liberty Incident,[2], and that David Irving is a legitimate historian (see [3] among many edits), as well as your passionate defense of Ernst Zundel, insisting he was railroaded and had a legitimate refugee claim (see multiple statemente here, and your various edits to Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles indicate a confluence of interests that is unmistakable. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Way to twist facts to support your own POV Jayjg .
  • You forgot to link to the other similar 9/11 edits I did showing Israel could not be responsible. That one edit was a fact indicating others might use it to reach that conclusion not me making a claim.
  • How does that reply to another editor on the liberty talk page imply any view at all?
  • Irving? I never claimed he was a "legitimate" historian. I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.
  • Zundle? Nowhere did I support his views. If you read the previous edit I made I said Zundle was "an idiot with rediculous ideas". Point out a single thing in that post that is not factual and NPOV.
    In fact the edits you highlight are all indicative of NPOV and it is extremely offensive to have such accusations made against me especially seeing as you apparently had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything remotely controversial you could use to accuse me of something. I expect an apology for such a blatant personal attack for no other reason than to discredit me as an editor because you don't agree with me. Wayne (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Setting aside the ethical and historical absurdity of "testing" the legitimacy of ethnic lineage of a group through DNA testing, I'm fine with mentioning the assertion along with the overwhelming evidence against it on this page; but I would have to see a lot of material from remotely reliable sources to see how it could justify its own articles. Whether or not it's a POV fork is almost beside the point as long as there is so little substance behind it. I can't even imagine the ugliness that would ensue if various conflicting parties in the Middle East got into DNA pissing contest, so at a minimum we should treat this one with care and seriousness. --Leifern (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Leifern has it right. Acknowledge that there's a dispute, give each side fair due, but the idea of having a section about DNA testing is basically a non-starter; it's already quite clear that the theory is rubbish, no point in saying, "Though the theory has been confirmed as rubbish, there is still one test that has not been done to reconfirm its rubbishiness." We just don't write articles that way. IronDuke 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is everyone going off on a tangent instead of replying to the reason for dropping the DNA section? Relevance to the article (in it's current detail). Fork is irrelevant as dropping a section has nothing to do with Forking. If you can prove relevance then the section can stay. If not then it goes. It can't get more simple than that. Wayne (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that a large majority of the people commenting on this issue think the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out before. So far the "consensus" is due to WP:COI and WP:POV. You can't just say it's relevant and call that consensus so I ask again. Explain why it is relevant or recuse. Wayne (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The relevance is that, because of the anthropological musings of Koestler (a non-historian with no access to DNA studies), so much of the discourse relating to the Khazars over the last 30 years has been tied to their alleged ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry. That is exactly the reason that these DNA studies were originally conducted; their findings are extremely relevant. The detail is necessary to support the validity of those findings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out before, the studies have been limited to Cohanim DNA which is irrelevant because "it is not indicative of the general population". The studies are I believe further skewed (I could be wrong) as Cohanim tend to marry within their own group (correct me if i'm wrong). I have no problem with other DNA testing but please explain why Cohanim DNA is relevant to this article as experts say it is not (in regards to the theory). Wayne (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

As I see it, the use of DNA evidence for the history of human populations is in general perhaps the most reliable basis of evidence that actually exists, despite all of the difficulties. I do not see why it is either unethical or non-historical. It is well supported by the published material cited here (and elsewhere) (That it is used to support or deny modern political claims is another matter entirely--one could well argue about the ethics of this use.) On the other hand, it does need to be made clear that the implication with respect to the Khazars are necessarily only indirect. But some published scientific sources to that effect should be added. For those who think it known to be irrelevant, I think the burden is now on them to show that there is a majority scientific viewpoint supporting their view, because it seems the scientific consensus is just the opposite. They may well be a respectable minority viewpoint, in which case there should be appropriate discussion mention of such a position in the article, if it can be sourced. DGG (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A RS was added several times but keeps getting deleted. The majority viewpoint is that what DNA studies have been done to date are insufficient to reach a conclusion one way or the other. The problem is the article states the conclusion has been reached and is a fact. The consensus is still that the theory is discredited but it is based on other criteria. Wayne (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about the majority opinion or rather, Kevin Alan Brook's on his self-published website? That's the only cite you seem to using to support your position. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Karl Skorecki, Mike Hammer and J Elkins are others who have stated that cohanim are genetically separated from the general population which makes an extrapolation problematic. Using the cohanim studies Yair Davidiy gave an analogy to illustrate it's relevance. "Red hair is inherited. If 14% of Irishmen have red hair compared to 7% of non Irish and we know that 10% of a town’s population (in Scotland) are Irish then a red haired person has a one in five chance of being Irish. While a possibility, this does not mean that the rest of the red haired people in the town are related to Irishmen". Wayne (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Wayne, I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm trying to establish is if you have the RS citations to back up your contention that The majority viewpoint is that what DNA studies have been done to date are insufficient to reach a conclusion one way or the other. on the DNA, on this, the Khazar issue. If the only actual cite you have is Kevin Alan Brook's opinion on his self-published website, which doesn't mention anything about his being the "consensus position". I don't see how you're supporting that claim. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I can give you the same cites used in the section but you dont understand what they say so I will put it in laymen’s terms (newspaper articles on such a technical subject are too simplified so not a good source). Karl Skorecki and Mike Hammer (the ones who did the study cited in the section) stated "cohanim are genetically separated from the general population", that they go on to extrapolate for the general population is virtually WP:synth (see Davidiy's analogy) and contrary to other expert opinions. If they are “genetically separated” then how can one groups genetic profile be applied to the other? Genetic pathologist Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin stated (Jerusalem Post Feb. 28 2001) that studies of cohanim are "problematic and arrive at conclusions that are not supported by all available data." Another problem is that the gene need not be Jewish in origin. It can also appear in unrelated groups. “Once CMH (the Cohen Haplotype) appears it is transmitted by heredity. Since Cohens are the most likely to have CMH when CMH is found amongst Jews there is a higher than average chance that the Jew is a Cohen. If therefore we come across a Jew with CMH there is a probability factor of one out of three (33.3%) that he is a Cohen”(J.E. Elkins). Then we have the DNA variation known as R1a1 which originates in central Asia. Dr. Hammer (yes the same one who did the cohanim study) believes a Turkic-speaking people of the Volga Valley is the source for it. According to the American Journal of Human Genetics (Sept 2003) 52% of Ashkenazi have this Asian variation while CMH is found in only 14.6% of Ashkenazim (and as a comparison, 15.2% of Iraqi Kurds and 9.1% of Palestinians also have the “cohen gene”). What does this mean? It means you can only come to a conclusion for the cohanim who have a considerably larger percentage of the gene (84% If i remember correctly) and it tells you very little about anyone else. It does however prove that there is no pure Khazar lineage (i.e. totally debunking the Khazar theory) while a “pure” lineage does exist for the cohens which is worth a mention but hardly the current amount and then only because it debunks the theory. The most you can say for the general population is that “the genetic results suggest that the Ashkenazim and Sephardim can trace part of their ancestry to their Israelite forbearers” and this is only relevant in the Cohanim article. This page is titled Khazars not Cohanim. Anyway, I'm not going to hang around and get in more trouble for trying to be a nuetral editor (not by you so thx for trying to discuss it). I'm done here as i no longer care if the section is relevant or not. Wayne (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship problems

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

Dating

Dating on this article has always been CE/BCE rather than AD/BC. Per MOS, it is inappropriate to change the dates to AD. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    {{{6com}}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Origins and prehistory section is completely uncited. At the least, the paragraphs all need a citation. I thik the (suishu, 84) in the second paragraph is supposed to be a Harvard cite, but I'm not sure as there is no Suishu listed in the References.
  • Rise section, Formation subsection, first paragraph needs a citation. So do the third, fourth and fifth.
  • Same section and subsection. I know you oriented the location in the lede, but it would not hurt to state wher the Gokturk EMpire was located.
  • Same section and subsection, consider merging a the last three paragraphs together to eliminate the choppy feel to the prose here.
  • Same section and subsection, the last paragraph and sentence of the paragraph, are the Gok Turks the same as the Gokturk earlier?
  • Khazars and Byzantium subsection is uncited.
  • Second Khazar-Arab war subsection is uncited.
  • A stylistic issue is the use of parenthetical comments. They are used alot and may be overused. Consider cutting down on them so the prose feels less chopped up.
  • Khazar religion section, Turkic shamanism section is uncited and needs to be cited.
  • Same section, Conversion subsection, first paragraph, last part of the paragraph is uncited and needs to be cited.
  • Same section and subsection, second paragraph, last sentences need to be cited.
  • Same section and subsection, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs are uncited. Also, the fourth paragraph has what I assume is a direct quote at "...writings as 'bastards'..." which needs to be directly attributed with a citation on the quotation.
  • Same section and subsection, seventh paragraph is uncited and needs to be.
  • Same section and subsection, last paragraph, last sentence needs to be cited.
  • Same section, other religions subsection needs source citation.
  • Government section, all the subsectios are uncited and need them
  • Economic position section, trade is uncited, and Khazar coinage needs a citation on the first paragraph.
  • Extent section, probably need citations.
  • Decline and fall section is totally uncited, and definitely needs them. Especially the very last paragraph where there is a direct quotation.
  • Khazars outside Khazaria and Late references are also uncited. There is a large direct quotation in the Late references section that is unattributed.
  • The Resources section should be broken into either 'References" which are used in the citations, and "Further reading" which is information not used in the article but that is significant scholarship. Also, both should be in the format of last name first for ease of finding sources.
  • Im unsure what the Eastern Hemisphere adds to the article that isn't in the map right above it. Consider getting rid of it.Same for the big world map down in the extent of influence section, the important parts are covered in the other map in that section.Same for the 1025 Eastern hemisphere map .. it's covered in the 1015 map above it.The article is already map heavy, without duplicating time frame maps

I'm failing this article on the grounds of lack of citations under criteria 2. Without having citations to large chunks of the information, it looks like OR, so it fails under both 2b and 2c. A quick glance at the sources listed, they seem to be reliable, but since most of the article is unsourced, it's hard to say that the whole thing meets 2a too. I also didn't get too much into 1a, so I'm leaving that as a unknown. It is broad and it follows the Manual of Style reasonably well. I didn't notice any edit wars and it seemed to be fairly neutral, although I did not dig into it deeply.

If someone disagrees with my review, please feel free to discuss it on the article talk page, on my talk page, or bring the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment Ealdgyth | Talk 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

I find myself agreeing with the assessment above: this is never a GA. It may contain the raw material for one, but that's not the same. Someone will need to sit down with this article and completely re-arrange the material into some sort of logical order. The article is littered with about a dozen maps of various descriptions scattered without rhyme or reason. How about doing a chronological h2 section on "History", chronologically, separate from other h2 topics like "religion" or "government". dab (𒁳) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is "The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity" by Paul Wexler a reputable source?

An anonymous visitor lately added this work to the literature list at de:Chasaren. As the title suggests, this is another work defending the idea of Khazar ancestry of the Ashkenazim while adding the idea that converted Polabs, Sorbs and Balkan Slavs are part of the ethnic composition. Does any of the authors/maintainers of this article happen to know this book? Is it a reputable source, i.e. does it meet scientific methodological standards (regardless of whether or not one shares the author's conclusion), or is it pseudo-scientific guesswork? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The book is interesting and possibly noteworthy but Wexler's argument is based entirely on linguistics. His notion was that Yiddish was not, in fact, a Germanic language but rather a Turco-Slavic hybrid that adopted an extensive German vocabulary in the Middle Ages. I don't know enough about linguistics to comment on the validity of the work (his argument struck me as needlessly complicated and violative of Occam's Razor), but Wexler is a respected linguist.
The consensus view among scholars is still that Yiddish is a form of medieval German that adopted some Hebrew and Slavic (and in a few cases, Turkic) vocabulary and grammatical forms. Wexler, as far as I know, convinced very few other linguists.
The problem with Wexler's book is that even if his idea re the origins of Yiddish are true, they no more "prove" a Khazar ancestry than the consensus view of Yiddish as a Germanic language proves a Germanic ancestry for Ashkenazi Jews. You can't prove descent through linguistics. Genetic studies done long after Wexler's book was written, which are discussed in detail in the article, are far more relevant to the Khazar ancestry (or lack thereof) of Ashkenazim. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wexler, incidentally, focussed very little on the Khazars. He was convinced that the origins of Ashkenazi Jewry were primarily Slavic. "Proving" non-Jewish ancestry for Jewish populations through linguistics is something of an obsession of his; see Wexler, P. 1996. The Non-Jewish Origins of the Sephardic Jews. Albany: State University of New York. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Case in point:
"While Koestler proved to be right about a Turkic component in the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis, he erroneously overemphasized this component (which appears to have been far less significant than the Slavic)..."
- Paul Wexler, The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity (Slavica, 1993), page 247 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Brian. Well, I would have to study the argument in more detail. However, the suggestion that Yiddish is a Turkic or Slavic language sounds amusing to me at best. My first language is German and I have studied Slavic languages and linguistics (mostly East Slavic, though, some South and very little West Slavic)
There are many dialects of German, which are at least as hard for me to understand as Yiddish. While I do recognise some typical Slavisms in Yiddish grammar, like e.g. the use of "zikh" as a universal reflexive pronoun, where German uses "mich" (myself) "dich" (yourself) "sich" (him/herself) etc., 75% or so of an average Yiddish text is intelligible to me not because I learnt Russian but because I grew up with German.
Apart from that I fully share your opinion that you cannot proof ancestry solely on the base of language. Else you could easily argue that most Native Americans are of English decent... If Wexler really believes that this approach is feasible, I would say that this casts some serious doubt on his scientific credibility. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Why is the DNA of Jews discussed in such great detail here when the article is very clear about, that whole countries can convert into Judaism without any lineage to the tribes of Israel whatsoever? We do not discuss the DNA of Christian converts, Muslims, Buddhist etc ... Do we?
  • Discussing anti-semitism in an article about Khazars - which nobody claims to be of semitic origin - is perhaps a little misplaced. MX44 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The DNA studies are notable precisely because the purported Khazar ancestry or lack thereof of Ashkenazim is a very well-known and hotly-debated aspect of their history (indeed, via Koestler, it is the aspect of Khazar history with which most people who have heard of Khazars at all are familiar.
  • Not sure how you can say that anti-Semitism (which means hatred of Jews) is not relevant- There are many citations to anti-semitic groups claiming either that the Jews exploited the Khazars, or subverted them, or that Khazar ancestry makes a lie of Jewish nationhood, etc. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm ... So the purpose of that section is mainly to demonstrate that the followers of Judaism from Poland and former Soviet may have the right of birth to Israel as much as those Palestinians whose ancestors converted to Islam - because they are not Khazarians? OK, I think I understand ... :-D MX44 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The purpose of the section is to illustrate the way in which this hotly-debated theory is used and misused. I honestly don't understand your dispute with it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the subject hotly-debated, used or misused in any other context than the one I spell out above and if not: Why do you disagree with me? Since the article goes on and on about everything from Genesis to the partition plan of 1947 to make its point, I honestly do not understand. MX44 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what point it is that you are trying to make. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly OK with me since Brian obviously did as you can see in this revision history comment: not sure what relevant point is made here. where he deleted some of the biblical confusion.
MX44 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for a while. My observation is that this article is dominated by people who are not that much interested with the Khazars. One has to look at the ongoing discussions to see that. It has been hijacked by those who want to prove their POV. I know some users commented that there was actually no debate but these heated discussions say otherwise. Why not just make a footnote about the debate and do the Khazars some justice by creating a good article about them for the time period they actually existed? It is amazing to see that some even had the nerve to nominate this as a GA.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep talking about hijackings and conspiracies yet you have failed to provide any reputable source for any of your contentions. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case I do not need to provide any sources. This article suffers from people who use it to prove their POV and you are among them. Why do you think the author wrote the following?

Survivors of the Judaized Khazar elite may have contributed to the formation of Russian Jewry. (C.V.Findley, The Turks in World History, pp.51, 2005, Oxford University Press)

The author merely points to the possibility. My earlier quotation from Nicolle above (which you dismissed claiming the author was not an expert) also mentioned the debate. Why can't we only mention the possibility and/or the present day debate and leave it at that. If there was a definitive consensus of expert opinions I am sure it would have been reflected in a book published as recently as 2005. (The same book also references Golden).--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The possibility is, in fact, raised in the article, and the debate is given a very broad coverage. The latest scholarship presented as to why it is a remote possibility. Nobody is disputing that Khazar Jews may have intermingled with other Jewish communities; the assertion being presented by you (and disproven by the scholarship) is that the Khazars are the primary ancestors of Ashkenazi Jewry. What appears to offend you is that your POV is not given precedence over others. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I asserted that the Khazars were the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews? The above quote is to emphasize that there is still no consensus on this issue. The whole debate is given so "broad" a coverage that it constitutes undue weight.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine persecution

Not only is Golden's article cited properly (Peter B. Golden. "The Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism." The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives. Brill, 2007. pp. 123-162.) but a direct quotation is included in the footnote demonstrating that Jews fled from Byzantine persecution to Khazaria. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic is clearly relevant as it relates to how and under what circumstances Jews may have arrived in Khazaria to influence its culture and religion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist hypocrisy

I mean, what is the proof that the Greeks of today have anything to do with the Greeks of 2000 years ago? If they don't, does this mean Greece shouldn't exist? same with any other group of people. Egyptians who are Arabs have something to do with the ancient Egyptians? of course not. So maybe Egypt shouldn't exist or its citizens shouldn't call themselves "Egyptians"? Yuvn86 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum to discuss these issues for their own sake. It exists purely to discuss improvements to the article. Please refrain from making off topic posts like this in the future. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yuvn, your argument against people who are against Zionism is actually, a perfect argument, against Zionism. So what if the Palestinians had nothing to do with the inhabitants of Judea,(which isn't true, but for the sake of argument), do they deserve to be kicked out of the land they inhabited for thousands of years? don't they deserve to live in Palestine, regardless of what Zionism dictates? I am a Jew, I am just against Zionism.

76.124.68.144 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Khazaria/Byzantium

That may be so, but the amount and nature of existing evidence does not justify this extent of certainty. "There is evidence that.." is more appropriate. There are other issues as well. The persecutions under the emperors added (pretty much exhausting the list of anti-Jewish Byzantine emperors) refer mostly to forced conversions. But conversions forced on people by their rulers was the norm at the time: the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, the Germans, the Russians etc. to Christianity, or, for that matter, of the Khazars to Judaism was to a large extent achieved on orders from their rulers. Calling something like that "persecution" for that historical period is arguably over-simplistic. We should either restore the specific sentence with the names of the specific emperors mentioned in the sources cited in connection to the immigration to Khazaria, or, even better, write something like: "...as a consequence of the sporadic spates of persecution." which covers all forms of persecution and corresponds to the picture provided by current Byzantium research on the issue. (see cited sources) Schlcoh (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your latest change is nothing more than weasel-words. There is no dispute among scholars that Byzantine policy was consistently discriminatory against the Jews. Forced conversions under Justinian II and Leo III were a small part of this ongoing policy, and the fact that at times the persecution was livable does not make it less persecutory. The sources cited are very clear that Byzantine Jews fled to Khazaria. I do not understand your desire to whitewash Byzantine-Jewish history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your statement that "We should either restore the specific sentence with the names of the specific emperors mentioned in the sources cited in connection to the immigration to Khazaria" - that is exactly what the text does. The specific emperors named in the sources are Phocas, Heraclius, Justinian II, Leo III, Leo VI, and Romanus Lakapenos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Briangotts leaves much out. While persecution was continuous it was by no means consistant This is reflected in the laws passed against Jews such as "not mocking Christians" and only allowing Jews to own slaves if they "did not convert them" side by side with laws passed legalising Judaism. Most persecution by emperors was largely the result of the Jewish "persecution" of Byzantium Christians. Benjamin of Tudela wrote: "the Jews enjoy many advantages even in their state of oppression. They are exposed to beatings in the streets, and must submit to all sorts of harsh treatment. But the Jews are rich, good, benevolent, and religious men, who bear the misfortunes of exile with humility." This implies persecution having a different meaning than the article implies. You also fail to mention that almost nothing is known of Jews during Heraclius reign. In fact what is known is that Jews believed Heraclius supported them despite trying to have them baptised. Most authorities say there were waves of immigrations and expulsions as well as fleeing rather than a continuous "fleeing" as you want the article to imply which is a simplification of an aspect of history that very little is actually known about. Wayne (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that you actually read the quote from Benjamin of Tudela that you've posted here. Nothing in it contradicts the assertion that Jews in Byzantium were oppressed; quite the opposite- Benjamin says that they bear their misfortunes despite being "exposed to beatings in the streets," and "must submit to all sorts of harsh treatment". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "...I do not understand your desire to whitewash Byzantine-Jewish history." (Briangotts)

I'll gladly answer that: Because, reading through Jewish History, I've noticed that what we've suffered has taken up these horrendous dimensions because people slip so easily to generalizations, clichees, steretypes and stretching the facts to fit their preconceived ideas. Committed anti-semites will of course never stop but they'll have harder time to spread their message of hate if people are more careful with facts and rationality and are humble about what we know, about what we know for sure etc. That's why I want so passionately to stick always to exact facts and, when we don't have enough information, to avoid jumping into conclusions and condemnations. You may call that "whitewashing". I call it "being careful".

From the sources: Ostrogorski, pg. 161 "The persecution of the Jews under Leo III, one of the relatively rare persecutions in Byzantine history,...." Cameron, pg. 274: "...whether it adds up to anti-semitism in the manner in which we have come to know it is questionable, for the Byzantines did not mince their words when writing about a group of which they did not approve, whether heretics, schismatics or pagans." Geanakoplos pg. 265: "Unlike pagans and heretics, the Jews were in general not persecuted in Byzantium." And if you had not deleted the three basic references on Jewish-Byzantine relations (on the grounds they are irrelevant to Jewish-Byzantine relations!) you'd have had the chance to become aware of a much more complete and complex picture of the status of the Jews in Byzantium.

Schlcoh (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 

Schlcoh (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
None of that material contradicts the fact that Jews were indeed persecuted under Leo III, for example, and did indeed flee to Khazaria. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue that comes up from time to time when discussing discrimination, persecution, or attempted genocide of Jews - what is the standard that qualifies systemic bad treatment as antisemitic or persecution or something else. I think it's pretty simple: if Jews are targeted for discrimination and ill-treatment simply because they are Jewish, we are dealing with a) antisemitism, and b) some level of persecution. When Jews run the risk of being beaten up on the streets, or arbitrary confiscation of property, or forced conversion, there is no question we are dealing with systematic antisemitic persecution. We can discuss ways to compare the levels of persecution, their frequency, intensity, reach, etc., but the basic characterization stays. --Leifern (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's as simple or as universally accepted as you suggest. It's the subject of a major and highly controversial debate which has involved people like H. Arendt, Hockheimer etc. etc. To start with, "anti-Jewish hostility" is not generally viewed as a synonym as "antisemitism". The latter has a rather specific meaning which sets it apart from, say, anti-French, anti-Russian etc. hostilities. Also, the use of the word "antisemitism" for anti-Jewish actions before 18th or 19th century is sometimes considered anachronistic because both the word and its specific features were first formulated in the 19th c. That's why people are very careful in the way they use it (see, e.g. Averil Cameron's ref above: "...whether it adds up to anti-semitism in the manner in which we have come to know it..."). In any case, the main point of the contentious sentence does not really have to do with that. Instead it has to do with a "quantitative" matter that is not disputed by any of the sources, i.e. that the state of the Jews in Byzantium was significantly better than that of their co-religionists in the Western Christian states of the time. Nowhere have I seen any suggestion of expellations of the entire Jewish populations such as those occured at the time in England, Spain etc., burnings on the stake (there is evidence that Holy Inquisition was designed with the Jews in mind!), prohibition of owing property, systematic pogroms, etc. etc. I don't think it's POV to include this info, especially since it's specifically mentioned in some of the sources. On the contrary I believe it gives the context of the situation. Schlcoh (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Schlcoh (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy these arguments at all. A phenomenon can exist before there is a common term for it; and in the case of actions targeting Jews, there is no question. Cameron's caveat is fine, though it's actually more careless than careful. Persecution of Jews (or any other minority) can be bad even if it isn't the worst at the time, or isn't the worst in history. --Leifern (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And it sure as hell isn't "sporadic" because it wasn't absolutely horrific at all times (being only mildly terrible sometimes). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of this is a red herring. The text does not say "antisemitism", it says "persecution". The sources clearly support that there was persecution and that as a result of it Jews fled Byzantium to Khazaria. The WP article correctly notes that the treatment of Jews is a complex and debated issue. But to characterize the persecution as "sporadic" is simply unsupportable. I thought we had arrived at an acceptable compromise. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it surprises me that people are still denying this persecution. It's a well accepted historical fact. For example:

The one group of believers who presented a real problem for both Christian theologians and the Christian state throughout the period dealt with here, and indeed throughout the history of the state itself, a group which, in spite of more or less constant persecution, occupying always a subordinate position within Eastern Christian society and culture, does survive and is able even to prosper, is represented, of course, by the Jews. Haldon, John F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge University Press, 1990, 345. ISBN 052131917X

Did you not the phrase he uses there? more or less constant persecution. Haldon is an expert in the history of Byzantium, having written a number of books on the subject. At the time he wrote this book, he was Professor of Byzantine History and Director of the Center for Byzantine, Ottaman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham. There are any number of sources saying similar things. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"to characterize the persecution as "sporadic" is simply unsupportable". You are welcome to your view but selective sources will always give you the answer you want which is why we need to use a range of sources to find the most prevalent view. Byzantine Jews were rarely persecuted ”because” they were Jews. Some sources say it was largely because Jews persecuted Christians. "After 1967, the reluctance of Israeli historians, especially those linked institutionally to universities and research institutes, to acknowledge Jewish violence in the distant past has become even greater...there are a number of references to Jewish attacks on Byzantine Christians in late antiquity and concomitant Byzantine persecutions of Jews" - journal of Jewish Social Studies, Volume 4, No. 2, Elliott Horowitz. "In matter of worship the Jews who dwelled in the Byzantine empire, except for an occasional outburst of persecution, were left unmolested by the Byzantine government. Starr has pointed out that between the death of Heraclius (641) and 1204, a period of more than five and a half centuries, the Jews suffered only three general persecutions." - The Jews in the Byzantine empire under the first Palaeologi, Peter Charanis. "They suffered no interference with fundamental rights in economic or social life....The persecution of the Jews was part of a wider movement against all dissenting sects in the Byzantium empire"- The Jews and Iconoclasm, Leslie Williams. According to Bowman, "The Jews of Byzantium", most persecution was by the Greek Orthodox church not the government. I have no doubt there was much persecution at various times but it is wrong to imply it was as consistent and intense as you believe. Neutral wording is needed for historical accuracy. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I'll add that the rejection of my latest version (and even more so of the one we seemed to converge on yesterday) makes no sense at all: 1. Why delete quotations explicitly stating that there was NO systematic and continuous persecution of Jews in Byzantium and leave the one that states there was?? It's even a little comical to state there are different views on the subject and then give only one view! 2. Why suppress the information that, as a response to Romanus I's persecutions, the Khazar emperor persecuted Christians in Khazaria?? It's stated in the sources you've provided, and it is much, much more relevant to the article than the status of Jews in Byzantium. 3. The books you suggested on the subject rely only on isolated primary sources on the question whether Jews fled to Khazaria as a result of Byz. persecution, often without corroborating evidence for specific incidents. This does not mean the books are wrong but that it is prudent to stress that the evidence is not overwhelming. It is not true this should be added on all WP statements, e.g. there is overwhelming evidence from various sources about, say, Justinian's, attempted forced conversions of Jews. 4. The very content of the discussion on this Talk page confirms that the nature of anti-Jewish hostility in Byzantium is open to interpretation. To add some more: i. Haldon's quoted book contains an extensive discussion on the matter. If you read all of it you'll see that selective quotation the sentence is a caricature of his discussion. ii. There were indeed sporadic attempts to convert the Jews but none of them was pushed with such seriousness as, say, the forced conversions of "heretic" Christians and, so, it's an open question if they can be viewed in the same light as the anti-Jewish horrors in the West at the same time. iii. Jewish contributions to major intellectual and even theological debates were accepted by mainstream Byz. thought, most famously during the iconoclastic dispute. There are still surviving philosophical/theological polemics written by Jews and responses to them and vice-versa. iv. Another evidence for the precariousness of our perceptions about Jewish-Byzantine relations is provided by a comparison with the (much better documented) contemporary situation in the rest of Europe: it was the time Jews were expelled from England not to be allowed in until the 16th c., throughout Europe Jews were massacred in pogroms or burned on the stake, a little later the Spanish again expelling all of them etc.

Therefore, I think the readers deserve to be able to decide on their own based on the sources provided in the article. And to answer Leifern's question posted in the mean-time. I whole-heartedly agree this should not degenerate to an edit war. A proposed compromise is the yesterday version everyone seemed to be relatively happy with.

Schlcoh (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should strive to find adjectives that have some sort of absolute meaning, or avoid adjectives altogether. Just reading the various citations, it seems to me that the rulers of the time were indeed prone to various levels of discrimination, persecution, and outright violence in various mixes and intensity throughout the time we're talking about. We have to find the right balance between trivializing it on the one hand and implying that it was as bad as the Holocaust or the Spanish Inquisition on the other, and that should be our common ground. Similarly, I think we should aim for some precision when discussion Jewish discrimination, persecution, and violence of the time - the problem with all these expositions, as we should all be aware, as that they're taken as evidence for radical and often antisemitic perspectives on contemporary issues (of the type "Jews are no better than Nazis"). Maybe this will make the article a lot dryer, but if that's what has to happen, we'll have to live with it. --Leifern (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that and I thought that the version on which we had kind of settled on yesterday satisfied these conditions. However, I see another user has reverted. I won't revert but I expect one of the editors who are more familiar with the discussion than the new editor, to restore the previous version

Schlcoh (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Schlcoh (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Schlcoh, you seem to be fighting a battle that is essentially irrelevant to this page. This page is about Khazars, and the specific paragraph in question notes that Jews fled persecution in Byzantium for Khazaria. You seem to want to make an entirely different point, that Jews weren't "always" persecuted in Byzantium, or perhaps weren't even "often" persecuted in Byzantium. The frequency of the persecution is, however, irrelevant; what is relevant is that at least sometimes Jews were persecuted in Byzantium, and this led to them fleeing there for Khazaria. On this all sources agree, regardless of whether on not they agree on the level of persecution in general. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Schlcoh's reverts

Schlcoh is now reverting to a version that doesn't make much sense to me and refuses to discuss on talk page. Not sure what to do. I've reverted for now, but it seems to me we should avoid this degenerating into a revert war. --Leifern (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Schlcoh is clearly acting in defiance of the consensus. I urge him to stop reverting and discuss his latest version on talk. Beit Or 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus of a majority of Byzantine experts (and Historical accuracy) has to trump a Wikipedia editor consensus based on a minority opinion. This constant reverting of a paragraph that does not even go as far as the sources themselves do is WP:Soap and tantamount to an acceptance of WP being allowed to lie as long it is by consensus. Clearly a RFC is not advisable so I suggest arbitration. Wayne (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. The consensus of historians is that Jews were indeed persecuted:

The Byzantine identity was complex. The Byzantines were both the new Romans and the new Israelites. They were the chosen people of the New Testament. They saw Jews as their chief rivals and competitors. This meant that a Byzantine identity would be constructed in opposition to the Jews. As we have seen, prejudice against the Jews was deeply ingrained in the Byzantine mentality at all levels of society. They would never be forgiven for their treatment of Christ. At Byzantium discrimination against the Jews often merged into persecution. (Angold, Michael. Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081-1261, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 508. ISBN 0521264324.)

When Heraclius made public his plan for a new religious reform in 638, there was already another pope seated in Rome, Severin, who rejected it altogether... During this period of efforts to arrive at the centralisation and maximal administration and religious unification of the empire, the persecution of Jews became a fixed and fundamental principle of state policy. (Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine, 634-1099, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 9. ISBN 0521599849.)

Yet it appears that precisely at this time there was an increase in Jewish settlements in the Black Sea region, as a result of persecution of the Jews in Byzantium and the flight from there, especially at the beginning of the fifth century. Pinkus, Benjamin. The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 2. ISBN 0521389267.)

Contacts between Khazaria and the institutions of the edah apparently were sporadic though occasionally important—as in the case of the Khazarian intervention on behalf of the persecuted Jews in Byzantium (944). (Elazar, Daniel Judah, Cohen, Stuart. The Jewish Polity: Jewish Political Organization from Biblical Times to the Present, Indiana University Press, 1985, p. 149. ISBN 0253331560.)

To achieve unity the emperors tried a mixture of persuasion, compromise and persecution, but when compared with the campaigns against the Jews and Samaritans, imperial persecution of the Monophysites was only half-hearted. (Whittow, Mark. The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025, University of California Press, 1996, p. 44. ISBN 0520204972.)

It is unclear to me why you would want to deny these basic facts; I doubt there is a single historian who thinks that Jews were never persecuted in Byzantium. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's unclear because not a single editor has denied "the basic fact" or claimed that? Wayne (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If "not a single editor" denies that Jews were persecuted in Byzantium, then what is your issue with the information? Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is evidence that"

For some reason certain editors here keep inserting the phrase "There is evidence that" before the sentence describing Jewish persecution in Byzantium. As I have already pointed out, this phrase equally well applies to every single statement in this article, yet we don't preface every statement in this article with the phrase "There is evidence that". Can someone explain why they insist on inserting this superfluous verbiage before this one specific sentence? Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, weasel words?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If both of you had bothered to read talk there would be no need to ask. Why do we have talk if you are going to ignore it and push your views. To simplify. VERY LITTLE is know of the Jews in the Byzantine empire which is why some historians are contradictory and assuming persecution was similar to the west. "There is evidence that" is appropriate as a qualifier but not essential. The main problem is that certain editors are trying to push the idea of a horrific and constant persecution of Jews which is not the case. There is considerable evidence it was sporadic and very likely was not directed specifically at Jews. Wayne (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an incredibly strained interpretation of the primary and secondary evidence. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:schlcoh, you've inserted this phrase again. Can you please respond over here?Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Khazars/Byzantium

Are one or two primary sources on a historical event in the form of personal letters sufficient to eliminate all doubts about that event? Why is the anti-Christian persecution by the Khazar king Joseph as a retribution for the anti-Jewish persecution by Romanos irrelevant to that part of Khazar history? Why is the sentence "Scholars differ on the nature and consistency of hostility to Jews within the Byz." followed by a [citation needed]? There are many references quoted down to page number on exactly that two sentences later! Why is only one of the conflicting scholarly views of the cited sources, quoted in the footnote? schlcoh (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to "one or two primary sources", in fact there are cited 3 highly respected reliable secondary sources, interpreting the primary evidence, that all say the same thing- Jews fled Byzantium and went to Khazaria. No source you have been able to come up with contradicts that basic fact. I actually agree that the <citation needed> note is unnecessary. As for the retaliatory raids on christian holdings in the Crimea during Romanos' reign, by all means, add that. You are raising this issue for the first time, as far as I can tell. Joseph's retaliation against the mosque in Itil is noted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggested version is much, much better.

I don't doubt about the respectability of the cited books but the fact remains that we rely on one or two *primary* sources. Although the authors don't mention it explicitly, it is understood in historical writing that, under these circumstances, we can't have the same level of certainty as for many other events in the article which are corroborated by many different sources. Remember: the point of the sentence is not that persecution occured under Leo etc. but something much more specific: Jews fleeing to Khazaria during each of these emperors' reigns.

I have some concerns about the formulation "While the scholarly consensus exists that Jews were subjected to persecution under the Byzantine Empire...". If what it says is that at some times there were anti-Jewish measures, then it becomes a truism which is implied (and in a much stronger form) by the statement following it ("scholars differ on the specific extent, nature and consistency of Byzantine hostility to Jews"). If, on the other hand, it claims that there was a continuous and severe, this is explicitly contradicted by several of the references cited (Ostrogorski 161, Geanakoplos 268, Cameron). Two possible alternatives: i. The sentence in an earlier version: "Scholars differ on the specific extent, nature and consistency of hostility to Jews in Byzantium." ii. While instances of persecution are known to have occurred in Byzantium, scholars differ on the specific extent, nature and consistency of Byzantine hostility to Jews. 

schlcoh (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources are quite clear that persecution was constant. It was much worse at times; at times it was livable. But to suggest that Jews were ever not subject to persecution and discrimination in the Byzantine Empire is not supported by the sources. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are again confusing two different things: 1. "But to suggest that Jews were ever not subject to persecution and discrimination in the Byzantine Empire..." I never claimed that. That's made clear by my last comment and neither of the two formulations I suggest there can be misunderstood as insinuating there was never any persecution of Jews in Byz. 2. "The sources are quite clear that persecution was constant". That's a completely different issue. Three basic sources that claim the exact opposite:

Ostrogorski, pg. 161 "The persecution of the Jews under Leo III, one of the relatively rare persecutions in Byzantine history,...." Geanakoplos pg. 265: "Unlike pagans and heretics, the Jews were in general not persecuted in Byzantium." Cameron, pg. 274: "...whether it adds up to anti-semitism in the manner in which we have come to know it is questionable, for the Byzantines did not mince their words when writing about a group of which they did not approve, whether heretics, schismatics or pagans."

According the latest version your entered: "...scholars differ on the specific extent, nature and consistency of Byzantine hostility to Jews." Indeed! Some scholars consider the Byz. hostility to Jews continuous, but others don't. Both points of view must be expressed in the article. I thought that two suggested sentence (or something equivalent) do exactly that. schlcoh (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response to my last comment, so I assume there are no objections to the formulations I proposed.schlcoh (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you do not seem to look at the sources that contradict exactly your claim and since you refuse to discuss about that on the Talk page, there is no other option than formal Mediation and, if (as it looks like) you reject the outcome, Arbitration. schlcoh (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Schlcoh, I'm going to repeat a comment I made above. You seem to be fighting a battle that is essentially irrelevant to this page. This page is about Khazars, and the specific paragraph in question notes that Jews fled persecution in Byzantium for Khazaria. You seem to want to make an entirely different point, that Jews weren't "always" persecuted in Byzantium, or perhaps weren't even "often" persecuted in Byzantium. The frequency of the persecution is, however, irrelevant; what is relevant is that at least sometimes Jews were persecuted in Byzantium, and this led to them fleeing there for Khazaria. On this all sources agree, regardless of whether on not they agree on the level of persecution in general. Why would the actual and full nature of the persecution of the Jews of Byzantium be particularly relevant to this article? This article is about Khazars, and, in the paragraph in question, simply notes that Jews fled Byzantium for Khazaria, as all sources agree. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that some editors want the section to exceed what the sources claim. Schlcoh and myself have tried several compromises including leaving the generalisation and adding a section from another article discussing the topic as a note. This was altered to misrepresent the sources it used. It may be of minor relevance but an inaccuracy can not be allowed to stand just because it is of little importance. If you feel the sentence is irrelevant why are you fighting to keep a version with little academic support? Wayne (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, the article currently states "Jews fled from Byzantium to Khazaria as a consequence of persecution under Heraclius, Justinian II, Leo III, and Romanos I." In what way does this "exceed what the sources claim"? Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The editing of the note detailing the claim. The note is a copy from another page and sourced so had no need to be edited to make persecution seem worse than it probably was. For example the sentence names Heraclius who may or may not have persecuted the Jews since it seems incongruent that the Jews supported him. I can't see the problem with the note. Wayne (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? You're now saying there is nothing wrong with the actual text itself? Also, the fact that the text was a "copy from another page and sourced" is completely irrelevant; the material on this page must be accurate, we have no idea who wrote that material, and how accurately they presented the sources. Finally, regarding Heraclius, I've provided sources that specifically state that Jews were persecuted during his reign, so I don't understand your point. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is English your main language? The text originally was more accurate but changed to make the persecution worse than the sources used for it claimed. The text was changed back and this started a small revert war. To compromise the text was left and a note added to clarify. The note was not just from another source but from a Wikipedia page discussing Byzantine persecution of Jews and had consensus. As explained several times above the sources were checked and supported what the note said, making it relevant and accurate. The note was edited to make a claim not supported by the sources.
The forced conversion of Jews by Heraclius was not persecution but politically motivated to ensure their loyalty after the Jewish revolt. That a few sources claim this amounts to persecution goes against the majority. There is little other evidence of persecution by him. The list of emperors does not seem to follow any pattern of degree of persecution. Wayne (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on article edits, not other editors. As I've said to schlcoh above, this article is about Khazars, and the sentence is specifically about Jews fleeing from Byzantium to Khazaria as a result of persecution. Reliable sources say they did, and while you may not consider forced conversion to be "persecution" because it was "politically motivated", reliable sources do, in fact, consider it to be persecution. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because the article is about Khazars and not Byzantium is not a licence to alter history. You should not cherry pick sources but run with the majority historical consensus. For example only recently Haaretz printed an article claiming most immigration to Khazar was voluntary, not as a result of persecution. Wayne (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, I'm not sure what point you are making any more. The sources that discuss this issue say that persecution of Jews in Byzantium led them to flee to Khazaria. What evidence do you have that there is some sort of "majority historical consensus" to the contrary? And what Haaretz article are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How about I just quote the same sources used in the section? Ostrogorski: "The persecution of the Jews under Leo III, one of the relatively rare persecutions in Byzantine history" Cameron: "...whether it adds up to anti-semitism in the manner in which we have come to know it is questionable." Geanakoplos: "Unlike pagans and heretics, the Jews were in general not persecuted in Byzantium." Wayne (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But Wayne, I fail to understand how that contradicts the point that other historians make, that during the reigns of certain Byzantine emperors, Jews fled persecution from Byzantium to Khazaria. Jews lived in the Byzantine Empire for over 1000 years; even if, as some historians assert, persecution was rare "in general", that hardly precludes specific instances of persecution, leading to emigration, does it? Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Entire article just reeks of POV and opinion shaping...

This article needs a total rewrite, hopefully by somebody who is more interested in objectivity than the current authors. For example, it is clearly written from a Jewish, pro-Zionism perspective and seeks to UNDERMINE any opposing viewpoints.

This is just one of about a thousand articles that are more fluff and propaganda than anything else. Please don't continue to UNDERMINE the Wikipedia by destroying edits that attempt to cure the obvious, and reeking, POV problems with this article. Sukiari (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sukiari-considering no real eviidence actually exists whatsoever to support that Jewish Khazars even existed, and the whole theory is dishonestly promoted by agenda-weilding anti-semites and JEWS, I would say your point is moot. But you are right this is the flaw of wikipedia, that topics can be hijacked and distorted by those with an obsessive interst in a point of view that others care little for. If you really cared for the topic why don't you go to original sources of it-free of the distortions of "objective" acedemics-and honestly decide whether there were Jewish Khazars. Let me give you an example-"Khazar burials took on a decidedly jewish fl;avor"-real meaning: we opened the graves of those that we thought might have been jewish khazars and found no positive evidence of Judaism (even though there should have been some)...but there were no positive proofs of another religion either. Kind of like saying since we didnt find a cross in your grave you must be muslim-in other words we didnt find what we were looking for so we clutched at straws to make ourselves feel better. The whole theory consists of this sort of thing-so how more objectively do you want one big lie to be presented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.187.176 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just popped in (I gave up using wikipedia years ago) to check to see what the wikipedia take on this subject would be. Sadly, Sukiari is absolutely correct. The bias which skews articles away from being neutral is clearly obvious in articles such as these, and the reason why no serious academic would ever endorse this as a learning resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.84.225 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The “DNA Evidence” section is misleading and biased and needs a complete overhaul

I think most people would agree that a true scientific discourse would not suppress information in favor of one side, which makes it difficult for me to understand why “DNA Evidence" has been admissible for so long. The title suggests an evaluation of DNA evidence, but the reading functions more as a defense against or refutation of the Khazar Theory. In its narrow focus on evidence that does not support Khazar ancestry (to be sure, it completely ignores evidence that supports the opposite view), it inappropriately rules out any possibility of a Khazar contribution to Ashkenazim, which contradicts historic and scientific research. Although there is a very small (and dismissive) reference to a Khazar contribution, the section’s real purpose seems to be to discredit or intensely downplay a Khazar contribution. The following are incidences of suppressed information or misinformation that must be considered for revision.

The claim that Khazars had “oriental” features is misleading and is not supported by a consensus view. They were a mixed people. There are documented eyewitness accounts of Khazars in which they are described as having various features: some were dark in complexion, some had fair skin and dark eyes and hair, and some had light eyes and reddish blonde hair.

The Cohanim Modal Haplotype is not germane to the topic because it accounts for only a minority of Ashkenazim and, therefore, as Ellen Levy-Coffman claimed in her reassessment of DNA evidence, does not disprove a Khazar or other non-Jewish contribution. Furthermore, contrary to what the editor seems to suggest, the assertion of CMH is hypothetical and has never been regarded as indisputable or conclusive. CMH does not belong in this discussion; it belongs in an article that is more specific to Jewish ancestry.

The claim that Jews and Palestinians/Syrians/Middle Eastern people are closely related should be regarded as obsolete. The most recent studies have found that the aforementioned claim was flawed. New studies have shown that Jews and Kurds and other people of the Fertile Crescent are nearly genetically the same. The most updated studies should be favored over previous ones.

To be fair and balanced, documented evidence that supports a Khazar contribution should be admitted, and the overall, more explicit message should be (not necessarily in these words) that according scientific reports, although the claim that the Khazars are responsible for all of Ashkenazim is false, evidence does suggest that the Khazars did significantly augment Ashkenazi populations. If we can't produce a more reasonable and objective discussion of DNA findings, perhaps the best alternative would be to omit "DNA Evidence." DSalxB (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An easy answer, please?

I'm an Ashkenazi Jew. Without having to read a long article and an even longer talk page, can someone please answer simply this question: Am I a Semite or a Turk (or just a European)?

Thanks in advance 74.64.99.122 (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be a combination of all and then some. There are no cut and dried aspects to this. There is very very little genetic difference between any human population on earth. Science says that as a fact. The latest I have read is that we all come from Africa and the original population of humans came close to extinction (down to about 2.000 people during a harsh climate change perhaps compounded by other factors)... 60 or 70 thousand years ago we pushed out of Africa and settled the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Human line 'nearly split in two' skip sievert (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim for details. Asarelah (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE by Ellen Levy Coffman

http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm (DSalxB (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)).

More POV problems

The passage:

"Naturally, criticism from the Ashkenazi community needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, given the damage such claims do to their political aims. And to fling the term 'antisemite' around when the actual validity of that term is the subject in question is suspect at best."

contains no information and plenty of POV. It is also very biased. What are the political aims of the Ashkenazi community? The community is extremely divided, everyone having his own opinion and never agreeing on anything. I'd rather say that the claims of anti-Zionist community "needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, given the damage such claims do to their political aims."

I am deleting the entire passage.

Also the passage:

"The discovery of the Behistun Inscriptions for the first time made the archaeological connection between the ancient Israelites and the Cimmerians, who were the predecessors of the Celtic and Germanic peoples. This discovery also added to the notion that the Ashkenazi Jews were not who they claimed to be."

presents pure speculations about Isralite – Cimmerian connections and Cimmerian origins of Celtic and Germanic peoples as facts. I have found no references to either Israelites or Cimmerians on Behistun Inscriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.80.99 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, descriptions of Benny Morris, Arthur Koestler and Bernard Lewis as Ashkenazi Jews are familiar stuff from Nazi and neo-Nazi circles. Rather than describe Benny Morris as a controversial and not always accurate historian of the New Historians school and Bernard Lewis as one of the world's top specialists on Islamic history and civilization, both are simply acknowledged as "Ashkenazi Jews." They are, but so what. Albert Einstein was thrown out of Nazi Germany and his theories considered wrong for the same thing - he too was an Ashkenazi Jew.

I am deleting these descriptions as well, and changing “Jewish historians” to “historians” and “Jewish critics” to “critics” 75.85.80.99 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

First, I apologize for including some unsubstantiated, unsigned claims in recent edits. I shall endeavor to be more responsible in that area. I did feel that this article (as noted above by another commentator) was greatly slanted, and opinion-leading.

With such a pivotal and incendiary subject, does it not make sense to point out the conflict of interest (Jewishness) with regard to *every* critic of this theory that is named in this article? Can they truly be relied upon for a balanced, honest viewpoint? Can they be considered the guardians of historical truth (like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house)? If we cannot make the distinction of the obvious bias in these cases, perhaps the only documentation that ought to be used in this article on the side arguing the Khazar-Jew connection is from Jewish historians themselves and vice-versa. This subject is pivotal, because it calls into question assumptions on which major international policy and events have been based on. Were it to be widely accepted that the Khazar-Ashkenazi connection is valid, it would have untold effects on foreign policies and events worldwide. Thus it is imperative that this "theory" be given fair and balanced exposure on the only free-information network left to us. Hopefully Wikipedia can be that repository of ideas and facts.

I have added a scholarly reference on the subject of the Behistun Inscriptions, and I apologize for not including that earlier.

Finally, for these purportedly reliable scholars and historians to use the term "anti-Semite" is laughable, given that it is the very definition of that word that is at stake with regard to the subject at hand. Any reference using that term ought to be banned from this article. (ProudParent, 1:15 pm CST, 6/30/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudParent (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting material by respected historians such as Lewis is unacceptable, as is describing them as "Ashkenazi Jews". As for the "Behistun Inscriptions", it appears to be a fringe theory unrelated to the topic of this article, which is Khazars. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks, there is little chance of this article representing anything resembling a balanced view with Jayjg acting as the judge and jury here. His Jewish affiliations (see his profile) call into question his objectivity in a serious way. Note the re-addition of the ridiculous term antisemite to the article text, as well as claims of "fringe theory" for legitimate scholarly references that don't agree with his viewpoint. Such is the fate of Wikipedia, though. A battleground of propaganda. Too bad. I don't have time for this. (ProudParent, 11:12 pm CST, 7/1/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.229.132 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Jewish affiliations"? Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"Jewish affiliations" seems a singularly unfortunate term. And the imputation of bias by you seems perverse indeed, since you've just defended quoting Bernard Lewis in here Libel removed.
However, within this clumsy appeal, there is an element of justification. The article doesn't mention that the Khazar/Ashkenazi connection has received a further boost this year with a popular/academic book reviewed by Haaretz from Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?", Resling, Hebrew, in which he says (amongst other things) that "The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion" and "I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins" and "the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents". PRtalk 13:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Insert that libel again and I'll delete it and block you.
Regarding Sand's book, why would you say it is an "academic" one? Sand is an expert in the intellectual history of 20th century France. He, like Koestler, has no expertise in this area, and is writing to advance a political agenda. As Amoruso points out, the genetic evidence alone vitiates his thesis. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about boost, but he repeats the old tale, true. Many academics dismiss the book as nonsense, like Prof. David Assaf, Yaacov Amir, Rivkah Lisk: [4], [5]. Problem of course is that he doesn't 'know' about the genetics. The genetics sealed the issue on this old myth. The myth is also contradicted by the language issue (Yiddish), family names (mostly German names were used), and historical dating to even Roman accounts of where the Jews were deported/emigrated.Amoruso (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
While the English-speaking world has not yet had the benefit of this new historical approach to this problem, it would seem to have caused quite a sensation in Israel, with at least two reviews in the national press, a sure-fire indication of notability.
Your counter-arguments might be interesting, except they're totally non-verifiable. When they're available to us, perhaps we should mention that Sand's work is not without its critics - but in the meantime, his thesis clearly deserves to be treated as a major viewpoint. I find it difficult to accept that the OWNERSHIP identified by a previous editor is so rampant as to stop us improving the article, and treating all angles in proportion to their place in the market of ideas. PRtalk 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
PR, are you Jewish? AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to Lewis, his specialization doesn't make him any more qualified than Sand, Koestler, Wexler and others to be an authority on Khazar history or Eastern European Jewry. After all, these were not his areas of expertise. Furthermore, Lewis is the subject of tremendous controversy among several scholars, and it could be argued that he is a ideologue, who is trying to advance a "political agenda" too. Someone so highly controversial does not belong in an article about a potentially controversial subject.

Much of this article violates pillar #2, in that it is not neutral, but POV shaping and persuasive. For example, the language used in the "DNA Evidence" section is completely POV shaping and misleading. It is undeniably one-sided, which seems to show that the editors were selectively gleaning information. Why not mention Dr. Zoosman's refutation of the CMH, or Ellen Levy-Coffman's reassessment of DNA evidence? More importantly, this section is full of faulty, outdated information. Someone please respond to my posts below.(DSalxB (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)).

I've covered all the same ground before here and here. All it got me was an accusation I was anti semitic. I took that accusation to arbitration and it was ignored until it dropped off the page, then I was critisized for putting it back on top. Good luck getting any NPOV here. Wayne (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, thanks for your response. Honestly, for me, being called an antisemite would be water off a duck's back, because I've seen that it's been nothing more than tactic in this forum, and I am secure in the knowledge of my own intentions and motives--not to mention I am very much semitic myself. I'm more concerned with this article's reporting of faulty, one-sided and obsolete information. The claim made in "DNA evidence" that Jews and Palestinians/Syrians are genetically similar is no longer considered accurate by researchers, and this can be easily shown. Later studies have shown that Jews are more genetically similar to Kurds, Turks and other people of the Fertile Crescent. See these sites:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1202742130771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Regarding CMH, if the opposition is to omitting it as evidence to support a claim, that's fine. But there must be a balance, and any refutation should be made known. Dr. Zoossman is well respected, and his refutation of CMH must be admitted. In other words, it's not so much a matter of deleting than it is a matter of adding more material. (71.99.176.91 (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Do these studies discuss Khazars? Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not they discuss the Khazars is irrelevant. What matters is that the section references obsolete, faulty evidence. In short, the DNA section references studies from the late 90's and 2000 that suggest that Jews (primarily Ashkenazim) share a genetic affinity to Palestinians and Syrians. In 2000/2001, the very same researchers conducted more advanced DNA studies of these groups and determined that, genetically, the closest group to the Jews is the Kurds and other people of the Fertile Crescent, not Palestinians, etc. This is the standard view among experts, although the previous claim gets around more.
Since this article is about Khazars, whether or not these studies discuss Khazars is quite relevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point. I've actually argued in past posts that impertinent subjects, topics and sources should be removed. Your point raises another reason "DNA Evidences" must be removed or rigorously edited. All but one of the studies do not mention the Khazars at all. As for the article that does mention the Khazars, the journalist, not the any of the researchers, makes a comment about the Khazars, which hardly counts. So, according to your logic, the articles that do not discuss the Khazars should be removed: these are the study that suggest a genetic bond between Jews and Palestinians/Syrians, which I have already shown to be obsolete, and the article about CMH. I didn't have much of an issue with CMH, but as you can see, it does not discuss the Khazars. CMH belongs in an article about Jewish ancestry, not the Khazars. There is no doubt about it--much of this section is grossly irrelevant or erroneous and must be fixed (DSalxB (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).
If only one of the DNA articles mentions Khazars, then that's the only article that should be quoted, and it should be quoted, since it's obviously relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, it seems as though you are putting quite a bit of effort into evading the main issue. I ask that you refrain from letting personal reasons or interests cloud your objective and ethical judgment. Basically, your argument is that it is okay to include as support a study that experts have determined to be faulty and obsolete, even though a newer study that is considered standard among experts is available. It also seems as though you feel that it is okay to include sources that do not discuss the Khazars only as long as they raise evidence against a Khazar-modern Jew connection. If you cannot be more objective and reasonable here, there is no reason to have any form of dialog to resolve this issue. As it stands, I guarantee that no academic institution would view the way sources for this article have been treated as acceptable or ethical. I will continue to hold the position that the DNA discussion is faulty and outdated and that it should be omitted or rewritten to refer to the more recent study. (DSalxB (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)).
I removed the stuff that wasn't sourced to studies mentioning Khazars. As for the rest, I didn't read beyond "I ask that you refrain from letting personal reasons or interests cloud your objective and ethical judgment", because that was a personal comment, not a discussion of article content. Discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I apologize, and I agree that I should discuss only the article's content. Moving along, I will make my case bit my bit. The article entitled "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes," which is the main source in the "DNA Evidence" section, asserts a claim that is no longer considered standard; the study's findings are considered by experts (including those who had conducted the study) to be obsolete. This study, which was published in 2000, claims that Jews and Palestinian, Syrians, etc share a close or common genetic affinity. The same researchers who conducted the aforementioned study conducted another study in which they determined that the previous study was flawed--Jews do not share a common DNA bond with Arabs, but with Kurds, Armenians, and other people of the Fertile Crescent. This study was publish in a 2001 article. Here is the original study: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378. And if you would like another source discussing this study, here is Jerusalem Post article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1202742130771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. (You should also note that the 2000 article/study does not discuss the Khazars at all.)
Here's where it might get a little tricky. The NY Times article that has a very short quote about the Khazars (made by the author, not any of the researchers) makes a direct reference to the obsolete, nonstandard study. If the central source is invalid and obsolete as evidence, then, logically, so are all of the secondary sources that reference the central source. The very notion of attempting to prove a claim that has been formally refuted by using an obsolete newspaper or magazine article that supports the claim is absurd. There is no legitimate or logical reason to keep any of these sources, and as I have argued before, the section should be rigorously reedited or omitted (DSalxB (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)).


I'm not too concerned with CMH, but here are my issues. Claims based on CMH are hypothetical, and CMH is only relevant to a minority (only 5-10 percent), therefore, not proving or disproving anything. More importantly, CMH is completely irrelevant to the Khazars, and the section is completely one-sided. I do not believe that any objective person would not see this.

Again, I'm not too concerned with CMH, but I am concerned with the claim that Jews and Palestinians/Syrians are genetical akin or similar. This is inaccurate information and must be rectified. As I mentioned in a previous post, for the sake of accuracy and objectivity, it might be better to simply eliminate the section. For a brief overview, read the abstract of the report on this site: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378 (DSalxB (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)).

Who is Barkun?

I have found the following references to Barkun: 

Barkun, pp. 138-139.
Barkun, p. 139.
Barkun, pp. 138-139.
Barkun, pp.140-141.

There is no full reference, so I don't know who it all is referring to. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.80.99 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's because an IP editor removed all those inconvenient facts, and instead inserted a bunch of speculative original research. All fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: POV's

Editors deciding which people, opinions and groups are "antisemites", "antisemitic", "hate groups" etc. ; stating as objective facts opinions of quoted authors or of the editors themselves, e.g. "particularly Arabs" support the theory of Ashkenazim' Khazar descent; editors arbitrarily ascribing motivation to people, e.g. "or who seek to usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own"; drawing conclusions about entire scientific debates, e.g. "a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support..."; presenting as the definitive summary of a whole discussion a passage by a well-known but extremely controversial historian (Bernard Lewis, on indictment in several countries where Holocaust and genocide denial is illegal)

Jefflor (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the most racist Wiki article?

Personal attack removed. Rrdil (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with the article, please refer to specific passages so that they can be changed. Asarelah (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the article please read this entire talk page to save time in finding out why it wont be changed. You will find many detailed and reliably sourced arguements for change and the arguements used to reject such. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I sure am glad that there's no censorship in this wiki........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.84.225 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Faulty DNA section needs to be revised

Again, the claim that Jews and Palestinians/Syrians share a common genetic ancestry should be regarded as obsolete and, plainly speaking, faulty. More recent studies have shown that the methods for the aforementioned claim were flawed and that Jews are more closely related to Kurds and other people of the Fertile crescent. See these articles:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1202742130771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


I personally think the most up-to-date findings should be favored, as opposed to misleading readers. Some deleting is going to need to take place.(DSalxB (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Jriginal research

The article fails to make it clear what all its allegationsa are based on. This is not simply about lack of references to books and articles. Section # ONE here must clearly state how all the available information on the subject is sourced and how credible those sources are.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Which sentences do you think need to be changed, and how? Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfc Linguistic Evidence

I dont want to get in an edit war so bring it here. An anon editor keeps adding this to the article. I believe the section is irrelevant. It is POV and OR to say that because Yiddish does not contain heavy Turkic influences it excludes that area as a region of origin. The source does say Yiddish had some eastern influences later at around the time of the Khazarian collapse. The source does not even mention Khazars. I don't believe anyone claims that all Ashkenazi came from only Khazaria so the fact that Yiddish originated in Alsace does not point to any conclusion as to the regional origin of the population. In other words it neither supports nor refutes any claim relevant to this article. Comments please. Wayne (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wedding gown, really?

Is the section (Byzantium and Khazaria) on the fasion craze with robes really important? I'm not totally solid on this subject, and if it did have a really important role then fine; but from a glance, it really doesn't look like that should be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.93.224 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article may have been tampered with.

Hi. Just a quick heads up to all the editors who work on this article: A user on the Something Awful web forums taking part in the Wikipedia Vandalization Contest claims to have changed most of the dates and numbers on this article approximately 18 months ago, approx. March 2007. Could someone with knowledge of the subject please verify that this article is accurate and that the dates and years specified are correct? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If he did, then the dates were later corrected. They look fine now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why there is so much interest in Khazars?

Isn't it amazing that this grotty, backward nation gets far more attention than any other state that existed in the region at the time, including Kievan Rus?!Keverich1 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not, actually, given the agenda of some people to create a ( false ) DNA 'basis' for their claim on a land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.73.246 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand

Shlomo Sand has some research on the subject that can be incorporated in the article [6][7]

I think there is a lack of photos in the article

there could been puted more photos of archeological descoveries noting the khazars.. such as the coing in sweden with the khazar writing on it: "moses is the prophet of god". http://www.myntkabinettet.se/notiser/spillings/mynt14.jpg (brought from khazaria.com)

there sould be about the excavation in atil in 2008.

http://www.daylife.com/photo/08AO4hE6aR6cO http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?more=1&itemNo=1023310&contrassID=2&subContrassID=16&sbSubContrassID=0

there should be at least one more photo about the khazar army imagnation:

http://www.tgorod.ru/index.php?contentid=240

thanks. נסים11 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can get copyright permission for the first three, then great. The army pic is itself a copyright violation, it is a scan from Gorelik's book Warriors of Eurasia. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Federation.svg/85px-Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Federation.svg.png ^^^^^ can someone please put this in the calender "history of russia".

i Don't know how to do it.

Simon Kraiz's citation is not relevant?

Probably, the problem with Muscovite99 's argument is that he confuses literal dimension with metaphorical dimension. The notion that from the Khazars themselves we have nearly nothing has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, khazarian cities are identified, khazarian coins are identified, khazarian authentic documents are identified.--Fred new (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Khasar ancestry of Ashkenazi

From the linguistic view point Al Khasari (Alkhasari) has the same root and similar sound as Khasar. This section is biased and non objective. The author of this section often express his opinions as historic facts, with no evidence whatsoever. What the author of this section is doing is ridiculous, and Wikipedia editors should stop the censorship and biased vandalism of the author of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.138.175 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DNA Evidence

I have introduced a new source on DNA evidence. Please do not delete it. --Damam2008 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The source you have added is this paper by Ellen Levy-Coffman, who, in your edit, you describe as a "geneticist". However, she is actually an attorney who practices family law, not a "geneticist". Her degree is a Juris Doctor, that is, she has a law degree. She is published on the jogg.info site because she founded it; it is a personal website, run by non-geneticists, which describes itself as an online journal. Please review WP:V in general and WP:SPS in particular. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Heres another link for you. The Khazar article concentrates on male DNA yet this source discusses mitochondrial DNA as well which indicates (according to the authors) that most if not all Jewish communities were founded by Jewish men marrying local women rather than originating from Jewish families. This leads to a different conclusion from what this article is telling the reader. Wayne (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, what makes you imagine that a 2002 article in the New York Times, written by a reporter, is more authoritative on the subject than a 2006 study by Behar et al, all geneticists working in the field, published in the The American Journal of Human Genetics? By the way, the Khazar section actually refers to that study; did you miss it? Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the original version was clearly NPOV. Its aim was clearly to refute absolutely the Khazar theory when there are lots of studies out there which seem to back this hypothesis. Clearly this is a very politically charged issue, but the section should be as NPOV as possible. Thanks to Damam and Wayne for adding these new sources. Perhaps the whole section should be re written so that it does not become a succession of contradicting statements. --Burgas00 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The aim is to comply with Wikipedia policy, which includes WP:NPOV and WP:V. As demonstrated, the insertions by Damam, and Wayne's 2002 New York Times article, did neither. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is not NYT opinion but a summary of a peer reviewed paper. Do not dismiss a source without verifying it's reliability. I looked up the paper and it's abstract is similar to the Times. As I could not find a free copy I have no link for it. And yes I did see that that the article mentioned mitochondrial DNA in passing but only to incorrectly support the claim in the same sentence by it's lack of detail. Any findings from that mention are minimised compared to the mass of text regarding the Y chromosome findings. Both are equally relevant and to detail one without the other results in bias. We should not pick and chose only the findings we want to present. Wayne (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make here. The "NYT opinion" is just that, an article by a reporter for the New York Times, not a "summary of a peer reviewed paper", and the article dates from 2002. The Behar paper, on the other hand, dates from 2006, and is solely and only about mitochondrial DNA; it does not mention mtDNA just "in passing". When discussing mtDNA are you truly unclear as to why we would favor a 2006 peer-reviewed genetic study over a 2002 newspaper article? Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The NYT article is a reporter summarising a peer reviewed papers findings not just "an article by a reporter". I never said the Behar paper mentioned mtDNA "in passing". I said this article does. Goldstein's 2002 paper is similar to the findings of Behar's of 2006 but broader in scope, neither of which support the claim that Behar's is used to support in the article. The article says: "supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin.", as does the mitochondrial DNA...". Behar studied only Caucasian, European, Near and Middle Eastern, and North African DNA (only including the extreme western boundary of Khazaria) and compared it to only Ashkenazi. At best he claims the mtDNA suggests a Levantine origin (which includes areas outside the Middle East) but he also states his findings were not sufficient to give a location. Goldstein on the other hand compared a wider range of Jewish groups and states that while the male founders were likely of Middle Eastern origin the female founders were not, although he concurs with Behar that their origin can't be pinpointed. The implication of this is that while Khazarian contribution to the Y chromosome is small the contribution of mtDNA could possibly be significantly larger than the article implies. The DNA section of this article really needs to be written by someone qualified rather than by editors looking for a particular result. Isn't there some way to get a reliable review? Wayne (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, he says "Hebrew/Levantine", and "Levantine", in the modern sense, actually describes a much smaller area than the Middle East, comprising Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel - read the Levant article. Regarding the rest, it's all moot. None of the mtDNA sources mentioned Khazars, so they didn't belong in the article anyway, per WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The latest rewrite is actually the best version for a very long time. The only problem I have left I have edited out as it added nothing to the article and is disputed by most historians anyway. Wayne (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. However, when you "Removed implication that Jewish history and tradition (as per Bible) is correct and undisputed.", you modified a direct quote. I've fixed your error. Please don't do so again. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should preface the quote with "According to Nicholas Wade" to indicate it is a direct quote. Or you can leave my version as a statement which is still accurate and would not conflict with the reference. Wayne (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
"Then perhaps you should preface the quote with "According to Nicholas Wade" to indicate it is a direct quote."I did that three days ago. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, thank you for the significant revisions you've made to this article; the DNA section is much more accurate and scientifically balanced. However, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, you should work on making the same changes to the article titled "Jew," especially being that Jewish DNA is more pertinent to Jewish studies than to the Khazars. Of course, I do not mean to suggest a Khazar contribution, but to include supporting evidence for the genetic affinity between Jews and Fertile Crescent people (DSalxB (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

Why are you thanking Wayne? I made all those changes, not Wayne. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did. So thank you, and I apologize for misdirecting my gratitude for the revisions. However, Wayne made some excellent points that I agree with. Also, as I indicated above, with the significant changes you've made to this article, it seems compulsory for changes to made to other articles involving Jewish ancestry, especially articles about Jewish ancestry. I still have issues with this article, but I will have to make my case at a later time (DSalxB (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).
The changes made here can't be moved directly to the Jews article, since this article only quotes studies that are directly relevant to the Khazar issue. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wayne has reintroduced Levy-Coffman as a source, despite the discussion above.[8] I repeat, Levy-Coffman is a an attorney who practices family law, not a "geneticist". Her degree is a Juris Doctor, that is, she has a law degree. She is published on the jogg.info site because she founded it; it is a personal website, run by non-geneticists, and the "Journal of Genetic Genealogy" is its online journal. Wayne now also claims that she is the "director of 3 DNA projects." Can he explain what he thinks that means? Meanwhile, please review WP:V in general and WP:SPS in particular. Jayjg (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is pushing a lot of disinformation so we need to clear it up. I did not introduce the source. It was already on the page and I only rewrote it to make it shorter which was stated in the edit summary which he must have read. Yes she has a law degree (irrelevant anyway) but she also has a degree in archaeology and her article is an editorial of peer reviewed research by qualified geneticists correctly cited and attributed. jogg.info is not her website, the website was founded by Whit Athey (doctorate in physics and biochemistry and a masters in maths), Thomas Roderick (doctorate in genetics and founding member of the International Human Genome Organization), Guido Deboeck (manager of investment technology for the World Bank and founder of the Flanders-Flemish DNA project) and Blaine Bettinger (doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology and coordinator of the Bettinger surname DNA project). Levy-Coffman is nowhere credited as a founder of the website and she is only on the editorial board along with Richard Barton (Obstetrician, Gynecologist and Geneologist), Ann Turner (MD and doctorate in Biology and the first to write software for determining genetic relationships of mitochondrial DNA) and Terry Barton (professional speaker on Genetic Genealogy). Sounds like the site is reputable based on the people who run it and the fact that it is a peer reviewed journal should make it a RS. To exclude the journals reliability because that particular article is a secondary source is to exclude all secondary sources for anything in WP which is rediculous. If you can come up other arguements for it not being a RS then ok but if you can't then it has to go back in the article. Wayne (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Levy-Coffman's degree is relevant, because it's a degree in law, not genetics. She works as a family lawyer. Her hobby is genetics. As for the various "founders" of jogg.info:
Editor-in-chief Whit Athey is a retired physicist. Not a geneticist.
Editor Blaine Bettinger is a student at the Syracuse University College of Law where he is studying intellectual property law not genetics. He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology, not genetics. The "Bettinger surname DNA project" is meaningless. Is it peer-reviewed? Is it being conducted by recognized experts?
Editor Guido Deboeck has a Ph.D and M.A. in economics from Clark University, MA, and a License-Doctorandus degree in economics from the Catholic University in Leuven (KUL, Belgium). Not genetics.
etc. You'll notice that this groups of individuals are notable for one thing; only one of the twelve editors of the jogg "genetics journal" are actually geneticists, or have degrees in genetics. It's a hobby journal. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No matter where Levy-Coffman's article was published, and no matter what her profession is, the article has been republished by the C. E. Smith Museum of Anthropology. Shsilver (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The article wasn't "republished by the C.E. Smith Museum of Anthroplogy". Rather, its website provided a series of links to copies of articles on the topic of genetics: see here. Included in those links were articles from newspapers, and even a link to the Stormfront (website). Clearly you are not asserting that the Stormfront page has suddenly become a reliable source on human genetics; so too this website's linking to an article does not mean it suddenly becomes reliable. Please review WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:V, and WP:SPS. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
They do republish the article. A link to the article would mean the link would send you to the original jogg site. They don't do that. They have the article housed on their own site, which by definition means they've republished it.Shsilver (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Even if they have "republished" the article, they clearly post material or links to material with which they disagree, such as the Stormfront page. The fact that the article appears on their website is not an endorsement of its reliability per WP rules. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, please review Brian's point. Second, including a copy of an article on a website is not "republishing" it. And, as mentioned, they also have copies of various other sources, including newspaper articles. They are clearly not asserting that these newspaper articles are the works of reliable geneticists. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also add, controversial claims must have excellent sources to back them. Levy-Coffman does not, I think by any definition, measure up as an excellent source for this particular field. IronDuke 06:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you two actually believe the information you are pushing in regards to Levy-Coffman? If you bother to read her paper you may notice she is making no claim it is her own research as the article is the research of Harry Ostrer, Melvin Konner, Doren Behar, Karl Skorecki and Michael Hammer just to name a few. Every claim/statement is backed by inline references and is clearly the work of reliable geneticists. Wayne (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you notice that she disagrees with their results, though? Please review WP:REDFLAG. By the way, she also relies on on someone's "Anthropology Blog". Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg: following your own logic, I have removed a source which is not a geneticist. :-)--81.152.206.183 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-geneticists can't be used to refute genetic studies by actual geneticists. Reliable sources in general can, however, be quoted in their area of reliability. Thus the opinions of Nicholas Wade, scientific reporter, editor and author who currently writes for the Science Times section of The New York Times can be quoted on Science matters. Please don't make disruptive edits again. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not disruptive, Jayg. Unless your definition for disruptive is "I don't agree with it." Levy-Coffman´s study which you do not allow to be cited, was not disputing any studies she is simply giving a summary of genetic studies to date, her work being published on a scientific journal as opposed to a national newspaper. It does not pass the test for you, for some reason, which I suspect is that you dislike its content. But it is ok to cite Wade who writes for a national newspaper?

I am not deleting any sources but you have reverted my edits on the POV and incoherent opening of the section without giving an explanation or argument. --81.152.206.183 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is not incoherent. Levy-Coffman is a family lawyer posing as a geneticist, and disputing the findings of peer-reviewed genetic studies. Review WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG for more detail. Wade is a science writer and reporter, summarizing the findings of a genetic study in The New York Times. The cases are not comparable. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your position on that. That is why I am not deleting references to Wade or including references to Coffman´s article. You still haven't explained why you reverted my edits! --81.152.206.183 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because they misrepresented the sources. As for your current edits, a) this article is about Khazars, and Ashkenazi Jews relationship to them, not other stuff, and b) if people want to know more about Wade, they can click on the link to his name; the fact that you tried to diminish his credibility by describing him merely as a "reporter" rather than a "science writer and reporter" is telling. So too is your consistent inability to capitalize the term "Jew". You seem to be able to capitalize other things - you capitalize the first words of sentences, peoples' names, userids, the terms "New York Times" and "Fertile Crescent", and even the words "Kurds", "Turks", "Armenians" and "Arab".[9] The only word you consistently seem unable to capitalize is "Jew", on this article, this article's talk page, and, indeed, on every page you've ever edited. This, combined with your persistent attempts to promote this discredited Khazar theory, means I can no longer accepts that your edits are made in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What???? So you have decided to make use of a typo in my edits (note that I did capitalise Ashkenazi) to accuse me of editing in bad faith! I guess I should warn you that English is my third language before you assume an antisemitic agenda from my gramatical errors. I did want to make it clear that Wade is a reporter and not a primary source, I think that distinction is important and you have argued for it yourself on many occasions. It is silly and patronising to be constantly pointing out wikipedia rules but I still think you should have another look WP:OWN and WP:GOODFAITH. --81.152.206.183 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a typo. As Jay says, you do it in every edit you make that uses the word, and seem capable of capitilizating other proper nouns. Why is that? Oh, and can you say what other accounts you've used here/are using here, if applicable? IronDuke 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok its not a typo, IronDuke. It is a mistake I commonly make with composite words, I capitalize the first one and forget to do so with the second one. Anyways, this is crazy-talk! Are you really trying to claim that me not capitalizing the word "jew" or "jewish" is proof of my hatred for jews (sorry, JEWS)? Its like me accusing you of hating long words for failing to spell the word capitalising correctly.

What other accounts do you want to attribute to me in your attempts to discredit me? What is wrong with you two? --81.152.206.183 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that won't wash. You have no trouble capitalizing "composite words" - you managed just fine with "New York Times", "Fertile Crescent", "Middle East", even "Levy-Coffman". It was only "Jew" you had trouble capitalizing, whether as a standalone word, or as a "compound noun". Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not attributing any accounts to you: you'd know it if I was. Just asking... did you want to give an answer? IronDuke 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry but Im quite unphased by your accusations of antisemitism based on my grammar, even though they should be deeply offensive to me as my wife is jewish. The best way to deal with ad hominem insults is simply ignoring them. Note that on no ocassion do I try to discredit user IronDuke, for example, on the basis that 99% of his edits on wikipedia push pro-israeli views in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I would like to point out that I am not trying to push a view that ashkenazi jews are largely descended from Khazars. That is evidently not true. The problem with this article and the article on asheknazim is that they reflect a political agenda showing all jews as an ethnically and genetically homogenous group unmixed with anyone for millenia, originating in present day Israel/Palestine. That is ideology, not science. --86.155.231.129 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be just that stupid, but I still don't see you answering the question. Do you have any other accounts, and can you say what they are? IronDuke 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes,Jayjg and me are actually the same person, occasionally suffering from bouts of pschizophrenia.. --86.155.231.129 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can't blame you from wanting to wall your main account off from what you're posting here as an IP. IronDuke 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is specifically about Khazars, and, inter alia, their relationship to other Jews, particularly Ashkenazi. It's not about the general genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


I strongly belive that there is a lack of photos & illustrations in the article.

please anyone who can, add more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.101.38 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

problematic references

  • I see nordic countries/scandinavia/parts of Norway are listed as under Khazar rule, it gives no specific time period, but the article itself and where it is noted deals it seems with the time period ca. 650-920(950)(?). This seems very strange since we have detailed accounts in Norse (Norwegian) tradition of our Kings and the political situation at this particular period, from our "Kongesaga", Saga of Kings, and Snorre, the great Norwegian/Icelandic historian (Iceland was not really considered a seperate country or seperate peoples and indeed they were not) and nowhere is such a rule or even tribute mentioned. There were shifting alliances between Norwegian, Danish and Swedish kings and chieftains(Jarls/Earls) and sometimes even intermarriage with polish and english royalty, but not at any point is there any mention of tribute or Khazar rule. Can anyone give a proper explanation for this reference?

What are you talking about? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

removed NPOV violation & Ir

I just removed two sections that made unsupported assertions that injected contemporary politics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.91.207 (talk • contribs)

theories

I add the Unencyclopedic tag because I think it devotes a lot of ink to discredited fringe theories.J8079s (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your assertion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA evidence (2)

What you are doing is ridiculous. All the references are proper.

Ashkenazi men carry more than 5% haplogroup Q, more than Turks in Turkey, half of Azeri in Iran. This is extremely significant for genetics and genealogy. Hiding this fact from Jews and Turks alike is a crime.

Behar et al. article clearly shows the large influx of Turkic genome into Ashkenazim. Specifically the 5.2% Q and 7% R1a1 are clear signatures of the Khazars.

To add 5.2 and 7 and equal the Khazar admixture into Ashkenazi as 12% is at best ignorance. One has to look at what the ratio of Q and R1a1 were in the original Khazar groups to determine the admixture. In any case the admixture was at the minimum 12% and in reality much more. —dded by Turkishhistorian (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Avraham you are destroying credible evidence. Wikipedia editors should stop Avraham's vandalism: —added by Turkishhistorian (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid there is continuous attack on the side of someone who believes protects Jews. I am a Turkish historian and I believe the below information is well cited and should be allowed an entry. The references in the Ellen-Levy-Coffman article are all scientific. The Behar et al. study in the American Journal of Human Genetics clearly identifies that a significant percentage of Ashkenazi males are indeed descended from Turks. All the references are kosher and I have difficulty understanding why the following is considered vandalism when in fact everything in it is referenced and true. I believe to hide facts indeed is disrespectful to Turkish and Jewish people.


{{editsemiprotected}}

Genetic Evidence That Links Ashkenazi Jews to the Altaic-Turks

One of the most important studies on the origins of Ahskenazi men has been conducted by Behar et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:768–779, 2003) "[1] ---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

According to this study some of the major Y-DNA haplogroups of the Ashkenazi male line are the following: ---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT-------------- 

   * R-P25 10.0% , Eurasian in origin
   * R-M17 7.5% , Eurasian in origin (R1a1, Levite signature)[2]
   * R-M173 1.4% , Eurasian in origin
   * *Q-P36 5.2% , Altaic in origin
   * G-M201* 7.7% , Caspian-Caucasian in origin
   * G-P15 2.0% , Caspian-Caucasian in origin

---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------


---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------Many of these haplogroups are largely non existent in Middle Eastern or Near Eastern populations. Especially the large percentage of Haplogroup Q is the smoking gun. Haplogroup Q is shared by Siberians, Altaians and Native Americans and is considered a definitive sign of Turkic ruler class in a population.[3]---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is predominant in Krgyz and other Turkic groups in Central Asia as well as being present in European populations. Haplogroup G is dominant in the Caucasus among the Ossetians, Bashkir.---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------These three lineages are mostly absent in Sephardic Jews. Q, R and G haplogroups together constitute a total of 33.8% of all the Ashkenazi Y-DNA haplogroups.---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------Haplogroup Q, which is more than 5% of the Ashkenazi men, is thought to have come from the royal Ashina family of the Turkic Khazars who also were the founders of the Gokturk Empire as well as the Ottoman Empire. Some other areas rich in haplogroup Q are the Altai mountains, Siberia, Native-American inhabited areas of the Americas, Eastern Anatolia in Turkey, and Northwestern Iran (more than 9% in Nothwestern Iran).---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------Although it is not possible to claim all the R haplogroups descended from Khazars it is safe to say that all the Q haplogroups of Ashkenazim descended from Khazars and likely a majority of the haplogroup G also descended from a branch of the Khazar confederation.---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------

---------------SCIENTIFIC METHOD--------------It is not known what percentage of all Khazars were haplogroup Q. Yet in admixture studies there is never a one-to-one transmission of genes. If 30% of Khazars were haplogroup Q, one can assume then that about 5/30 (16%) of Ashkenazi are Khazar descendants. Yet if 20% of Khazars were haplogroup Q, then about 5/20 (25%) of Ashkenazi are Khazar descendants. Despite these results not being properly discussed in the Ashkenazim, it is clear that Turkic Khazars were a significant founding group of today's Ashkenazim men. [4]---------------SCIENTIFIC METHOD--------------

Not done: Please come to a consensus here before requesting that other editors add controversial material. Additionally, the above text's tone is not appropriate. It reads too much like an essay. Phrases like "smoking gun", "safe to say", and "it is clear" often indicate deeper issues with the content, like a lack of verifiable sources or original research. I haven't read all of the discussion or the sources, so I cannot comment on the details here, but I don't feel that the {{editsemiprotected}} template should be used for the above material as it stands.—C45207 | Talk 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}


Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I believe the request is pretty clear! It basically tells to state the Y-DNA haplogroup composition among Ashkenazi men correctly. Ashkenazi men include more than 5% haplogroup Q which is an accepted Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA marker. Not only that but also Ashkenazi men include more than 7% haplogroup R1a1-another Turkic marker- and this specific haplogroup is tied to the Levites. In the previous texts it is claimed that the Khazar Turkic-Ashkenazi connection is bogus whereas studies by respectable Jewish scientists such as Behar show that this link actually is strong. This has to be clearly explained in the article regarding the Khazars. Khazar empire was special in its characteristic that it was Turkic and Jewish at the same time. This empire is critical in historical studies as many of its forebearers are the most important Turks in history (Gokturks-Skyturks) as well as many of its descendants (Seljuks-Ottomans-Safavids). The statements laid out here are fact and not fiction and can not be erased on the ground of language. Furthermore the information is included in the discussion section and the references are all scientific. You say that you did not read all the references and yet you still find it inappropriate to put the text in Wikipedia. I think this is clear discrimination, YOU SHOULD READ ALL THE REFERENCES{{editsemiprotected}}
The request was not clear: do you want this section added to the article? If so, you should specify where it should be added and format it so that it can be copied and pasted. Text like "---------------FACT AND SCIENTIFIC RESULT--------------", "[3]", "Haplogroup Q, which is more than 5% of the Ashkenazi men" (the bolding), and "Despite these results not being properly discussed in the Ashkenazim, it is clear that Turkic Khazars were a significant founding group of today's Ashkenazim men" (the bolding and the "it is clear") is inappropriate to add to the article. You should also consider re-working the sections that contain phrases like "smoking gun", "safe to say", and "it is clear" so that you show readers–instead of telling them–why the information is important.
You are correct that I was not clear before when I said "I haven't read all of the discussion or the sources, so I cannot comment on the details here." My meaning was that I am not well-versed enough in the DNA markers to contribute to a discussion about the content's inclusion or not and the inferences drawn from the data. However, the {{editsemiprotected}} request that I saw did not clearly specify the change to be made (it just appeared to be article content with no clear edit request), so I declined it. I suggest that you come to a consensus here on good, encyclopedic-in-tone content to include. You are welcome to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template again, but I urge you to review its guidelines again and include an unambiguous edit request. This edit request is a good example: it clearly identifies what is to be changed and includes content that can be copied and pasted to affect that change. Sorry I wasn't clearer before. —C45207 | Talk 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MOST JEWS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ASHKENAZI JEWS!

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The above is not a clear edit request. What should be changed and to what should it be changed?—C45207 | Talk 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I believe the request is pretty clear! It basically tells to state the Y-DNA haplogroup composition among Ashkenazi men correctly. Ashkenazi men include more than 5% haplogroup Q which is an accepted Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA marker. Not only that but also Ashkenazi men include more than 7% haplogroup R1a1-another Turkic marker- and this specific haplogroup is tied to the Levites. In the previous texts it is claimed that the Khazar Turkic-Ashkenazi connection is bogus whereas studies by respectable Jewish scientists such as Behar show that this link actually is strong. This has to be clearly explained in the article regarding the Khazars. Khazar empire was special in its characteristic that it was Turkic and Jewish at the same time. This empire is critical in historical studies as many of its forebearers are the most important Turks in history as well as many of its descendants. The facts laid out here are fact and not fiction and can not be erased on the ground of language.
"WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MOST JEWS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ASHKENAZI JEWS!" is not a clear edit request. What should be changed? What should it be changed to? The two sentences "WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MOST JEWS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ASHKENAZI JEWS!" in this exact form do not belong in the article.—C45207 | Talk 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


It seems that most Jews are closely related to the Kurds, more, in fact, than with any other people:

http://israeli-kurdish-friendship-league.blogspot.com/2008/07/genetic-bonds-between-kurds-and-jews.html In 2001, a team of Israeli, German, and Indian scientists discovered that the majority of Jews around the world are closely related to the Kurdish people -- more closely than they are to the Semitic-speaking Arabs or any other population that was tested.

Kurds live(d) in the same geographical area as the Khazars: the Caucasus. Ergo: most Jews might indeed be descendants of the Khazars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.124.240 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


What you are doing is ridiculous. All the references are proper.

Ashkenazi men carry more than 5% haplogroup Q, more than Turks in Turkey, half of Azeri in Iran. This is extremely significant for genetics and genealogy. Hiding this fact from Jews and Turks alike is a crime.

Behar et al. article clearly shows the large influx of Turkic genome into Ashkenazim. Specifically the 5.2% Q and 7% R1a1 are clear signatures of the Khazars.

To add 5.2 and 7 and equal the Khazar admixture into Ashkenazi as 12% is at best ignorance. One has to look at what the ratio of Q and R1a1 were in the original Khazar groups to determine the admixture. In any case the admixture was at the minimum 12% and in reality much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishhistorian (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Avraham you are destroying credible evidence. Wikipedia editors should stop Avraham's vandalism: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishhistorian (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I am afraid there is continuous attack on the side of someone who believes protects Jews. I am a Turkish historian and I believe the below information is well cited and should be allowed an entry. The references in the Ellen-Levy-Coffman article are all scientific. The Behar et al. study in the American Journal of Human Genetics clearly identifies that a significant percentage of Ashkenazi males are indeed descended from Turks. All the references are kosher and I have difficulty understanding why the following is considered vandalism when in fact everything in it is referenced and true. I believe to hide facts indeed is disrespectful to Turkish and Jewish people.


{{editsemiprotected}}

One of the most important studies on the origins of Ahskenazi men has been conducted by Behar et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:768–779, 2003) "[1]

According to this study some of the major Y-DNA haplogroups of the Ashkenazi male line are the following:

  • R-P25 10.0% , Eurasian in origin
  • R-M17 7.5% , Eurasian in origin (R1a1, Levite signature)[2]
  • R-M173 1.4% , Eurasian in origin
  • *Q-P36 5.2% , Altaic in origin
  • G-M201* 7.7% , Caspian-Caucasian in origin
  • G-P15 2.0% , Caspian-Caucasian in origin

Many of these haplogroups are largely non existent in Middle Eastern or Near Eastern populations. Especially the large percentage of Haplogroup Q is the smoking gun. Haplogroup Q is shared by Siberians, Altaians and Native Americans and is considered a definitive sign of Turkic ruler class in a population.[3]

Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is predominant in Krgyz and other Turkic groups in Central Asia as well as being present in European populations. Haplogroup G is dominant in the Caucasus among the Ossetians, Bashkir.

These three lineages are mostly absent in Sephardic Jews. Q, R and G haplogroups together constitute a total of 33.8% of all the Ashkenazi Y-DNA haplogroups.

Haplogroup Q, which is more than 5% of the Ashkenazi men, is thought to have come from the royal Ashina family of the Turkic Khazars who also were the founders of the Gokturk Empire as well as the Ottoman Empire. Some other areas rich in haplogroup Q are the Altai mountains, Siberia, Native-American inhabited areas of the Americas, Eastern Anatolia in Turkey, and Northwestern Iran (more than 9% in Nothwestern Iran).

Although it is not possible to claim all the R haplogroups descended from Khazars it is safe to say that all the Q haplogroups of Ashkenazim descended from Khazars and likely a majority of the haplogroup G also descended from a branch of the Khazar confederation.

It is not known what percentage of all Khazars were haplogroup Q. Yet in admixture studies there is never a one-to-one transmission of genes. If 30% of Khazars were haplogroup Q, one can assume then that about 5/30 (16%) of Ashkenazi are Khazar descendants. Yet if 20% of Khazars were haplogroup Q, then about 5/20 (25%) of Ashkenazi are Khazar descendants. Despite these results not being properly discussed in the Ashkenazim, it is clear that Turkic Khazars were a significant founding group of today's Ashkenazim men. [4]

Not done: See above.—C45207 | Talk 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done:Please place only one {{editsemiprotected}} tag, and place it above the detailed change request, include what should be changed, and to what it should be changed.—C45207 | Talk 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Slaves, Itil

"“They have no slaves to the land because they buy everything by means of money.” [107] Itil, the capital of the Khazars, was a great commercial center, the starting point for the transport of goods eventually ending up at Mainz."

google for a cite

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Behar, D. "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations". Hum Genet (2004) 114 : 354–365. {{cite journal}}: Text "http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf" ignored (help); line feed character in |coauthors= at position 38 (help); line feed character in |title= at position 47 (help)
  2. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/xvj2jwclptvrvmer/fulltext.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
  4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/science/27GENE.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khazars/Archive_2&oldid=1079074383"