Talk:Khazars/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WP:ANI

As Tritomex continues to claim ownership of this article and continues to censor anything he doesn't like,even when there is a consensus against him, I've brought the matter to WP:ANI [1] so that we can continue to focus on how to improve the article instead of all the drama.Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jeppiz. After seeing the tone and nature of those edits, I felt like throwing in the towel. For the record, in three edits these are the policy violations and errors he made.

(1) here accompanied by the edit summary.

‘Restoring their original name on Turkic language, Khazar is not Hebrew term, joying connected claims without K:A Brook,’

Note: (a)This reverses a consensus on the talk page here where 3 editors argued this unsourced assertion is someone’s WP:OR mechanically transposing the name into Turkic runic. (b) the motivation given is that of removing the Hebrew term for the Khazars. Note that the text never states that Khazar is a Hebrew term. It simply gives the Hebrew word for Khazars. (c) ‘joying connected claims without K A Brook.’ This is completely incomprehensible in English, and suggests the editor should not be editing on this encyclopedia.

(2) here with the edit summary:

There are no blood group related Turkic affinities, this study is outdated, unusable, and the claim is unverifiable

Note: (a) Tritomex removed what qualifies indisputably as RS, namely Mourant, A. E.; Kopec, A. C.; and Domaniewska-Sobczak, K. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups and Other Polymorphisms. London: Oxford (b) Mourant’s work is considered as outside the ideological pressures which vitiated Israeli research, by the way (ee Nurit Kirsh 'Population Genetics' 2003, which may explain Tritomex's hostility to Mourant's work.

(3) here

with the edit summary:

It is not some scholars for and some against it. This definition is fully supports actual weight. 2. Removing repetition in the lead and self published books from unreliable sources-3. Removing unsourced claims

(a) The lead alteration changed the consensually phrased (per Jeppix) ‘while many other scholars reject this hypothesis’ into ‘the overwhelming majority of (scholars) reject this hypothesis.’

Note:The justification is that the former lead is repetitious. Spurious claim since the lead does not repeat itself in the phrase he changed on that pretext. In its place, we have a WP:OR assertion that the overwhelming majority of scholars reject the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis. No source is provided. In my draft for the relevant section, it is noted that the issue is deeply contentious.

(b)Tritomex removed the following passage

However, Khazars are generally described by early Arab sources as having a white complexion, blue eyes, and reddish hair.

This was supported by

• Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai, The myth of the Jewish race, Wayne State University Press, 1989, p.70
• Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p.3
• Jits Van Straten, The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled, Walter de Gruyter, 2011, p.148

Now Brook may be questionable, Jits van Straten may be borderline, since this is an historical question. Tritomex is correct that the following two are unreliable, and only these could be removed confidently.

• Joseph Roth, Radetzkymarsch, Tredition, 2011, p.136
• Fundația Culturalǎ Română, Plural: culture & civilization, Ausgabe 27, The Foundation, 2006, p.232

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2012/Introduction

Tritomex threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Raphael Patai was a distinguished Jewish orientalist and his book was reissued under university imprint, and in it he states: ‘The Khazars were a Turkic people from Central Asia with some Mongoloid admixture who originally practiced a primitive shamanism. They are described in early Arab sources as having a white complexion, blue eyes, and reddish hair. The Turkish affinities of the Khazars are borne out by modern anthropological studies.’

Therefore Tritomex removed an impeccable source, and the almost verbatim quote from it from the article, on trumped up charged. His edit summary suggests Patai is unreliable and self-published. Both false.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) I do not see any valid reason how the Hebrew translation of Khazar's name has to be placed in the lead. The Khazars spoke a Turkic and not Hebrew language and I can not see any reason why the translation of their name to Hebrew language went into the lead, except for the creation of impression that Khazars were Jews. The same goes for hexagonal star picture, which is not the Star of David and which was presented in the lead in a way that allude that it represents a Khazar symbol.

(2)Although I was maybe wrong regarding the removal of this article related to "blood groups with Turkic affinities", this article dates from pre population genetic era (1976) and I considered it outdated.

(3) The Khazar theory edition in the lead was edited without any source. I wished to present sources, however I was reverted before I finished my edition. Therefore the WP:OR is fully applicable for the current text.

(4) Joseph Roth is as far as I know was an Austrian journalist and novelist who lived a century ago. He was not a historian and has no any formal education from history while Fundația Culturalǎ Română, is a Romanian publishing house and foundation and not a source. Also I do not understand what "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2012/Introduction" has to do with this claim.--Tritomex (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can agree on the first half of the first point. I know of no evidence that the Khazars spoke Hebrew and I would not object to removing the Hebrew version of their name. For the rest, it is an undisputed facts that Khazars were Jews, if by 'Jew' we mean a person belonging to the Jewish faith. As for the sources, I agree fully with you (and I already said this days ago) that we need to add sources in the lead. Please keep in mind that we're currently restructuring the whole article. Joseph Roth was, as you say, a Jewish journalist from Austria (today's Ukraine) who was reasonably famous but certainly not a historian. We should not edit him out, but nor should we use him as a source for any claim about history (not to mention genetics).Jeppiz (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(1)" The reddish hair, white skin, and blue eyes" quote from Patai was already presented in the article. What was the reason for its repetition in the lead?(2) The current claim regarding Khazar Theory lacks any source--Tritomex (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(3) Who claimed that it is "undisputed fact" that Khazrs were Jews? Certainly this view is not held by historians like Ben Sasson, Golden, Moshe Gil, Bernard Lewis, Dunlop, all Arab medieval historians etc or by population geneticists like Atzmon, Behar, Shen, Sorecki, Moorijani, Thomas, Hammer etc (4) The current wording regarding the conversion of Khazar nobility is sourced by K.A.Brook who has no formal education from history and was described as unreliable above. If you already said that you need a source for Khazar Theory in the lead, why you edited it before providing a source?--Tritomex (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"First Feudal State" claim

I'm trying to correct the citations so there aren't as many big,red, bold, harv error notices (I use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). While doing so, I see that the feudal state statement is sourced to Golden and Ben-Shammai's "The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, Part 8, Volume 17". page 202? Whilst page 202 is not in the google book preview, searching for "feudal" in that book returns pages 32 and 45. The claim on page 32 is ascribed to Artomonov and the claim on page 45 is ascribed to there is quoted from Magomedov. Either way, Golden himself, who is the author of that section, disputes that claim (see both pages). I think that sentence needs to be properly sourced, first, and either the dispute noted or removed, especially as it is in the lead. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you in these parts, Avi, and my compliments: very good work. I was suspicious on sight of that 'feudal state' statement, which I found in the article while revising the lead. It sounded to me like something out of Russia, rather than Golden, because (as the great Ernest Gellner noted, feudalism was a keynote, as one would expect, in the Soviet typology of historical societies.(State & Society in Soviet Thought Basil Blackwell, 1988)). Since my bit here is to work consecutively through the page in thematic and chronological order, it wasn't a priority to check. I left it there (formatted) but put the ? in just to remind myself, or other editors, that this had to be checked. As far as I am concerned, it can be removed, and put into a new section requesting that editors check it for verification. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you too. I am going to try my d@rndest to stay out of the geneology arguments, and focus on just cleaning and checking the references. Better for my sanity that way! I think that it should be removed from the lead as it is certainly disputed, and addressed elsewhere, like Khazars#Formation of the Khazar state. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the genealogy arguments should be here, and I think everything regarding genetics and genealogy, except for a comprehensive but laconically worded final paragraph on the modern if quite minor scholarly hypothesis, should be removed. This is about the Khazars, not about speculations about where the Khazars ended up (meaningless to me, because the Khazars were a very complex amalgam of distinct peoples).

While we're at in re the lead. I hinted above it had residual problems from the dramatic retroactive interpretation of the Khazars as the defenders of the West against an Arab threat, which my hasty draft didn't quite elide. Would all editors examine this, and the sources, for the dubious framing of the buffer state function of the Khazar state? Any suggestions on how to rewrite this according to the geopolitics of the period (Luttwak is very good, but Toynbee is still not outdated)

it played a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East, and Europe.harvnb|Allsen|1997|pp=2-23

That should be periodized as Tang dynasty China and the Abbasid and (not Europe, a dull backwater save for Charlemagne's little court with its solitary Alcuin), Byzantine Empires

Khazaria served as a buffer state between the Byzantine Empire and the rising tide of Islamic conquest and enjoyed a strategic entente with the Christian Byzantium empire throughout the period of the Arab–Khazar Wars.

Again slipshod. We are looking at over three hundred years of history, in which the Khazars fought off the Islamic thrust north, as allies of Byzantium, were in turn, allies and opponents of Byzantium which sought other alliances to its north, and had their work cut out for them staving off Rus expansion from Kiev southward. Again, the thing is wholly cast in modern geopolitical clichés, and not in terms of the perceptions of the great power and rising peripheral states of that time.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved the feudal state claim into a later section and noted it was disputed, bringing Golden 35 & 42 as the source. -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit, Avi, wexlers are just for bibliography; they have no reference in the text, so removing harv tag I can't quite figure out the difference, but all items I have added to the bibliography refer to works I have used in my rough draft. Wexler isn't just cited for the name: he's used on things like the Khazar dress adopted by the Byzantine court, the ( τζιτζ(ι)άκιον), for example, as fellow editors will note when I get to that section.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that there was no {{harvnb}} or similar tag in the text linking to the other Wexler citations, so the <|ref = harv tag throws an error in the checker I use (User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). Of course they may be referenced as free text in a ref, and certainly shouldn't be removed. I'm just trying to clean up the refs; sorry if I implied anything more. -- Avi (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Avi. Everyone around here should know that I am a complete fuckwit (excuse the euphemism) on everything from wiki policy, diff research, formatting, not to mention much else. I still don't know what you mean. But I always place complete trust in the judgement of superb formalists and wikiexperts like yourself when I'm perplexed, and never challenge them on stuff like this. I didn't see any 'implication', I just confessed my own thickwittedness. Sorry for asking. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should you be sorry you asked?! 1) Every edit needs a reason or justification, and the editor needs to be prepared to explain 2) Every editor can make a mstake, and politely asking for the reason for the edit is the best way to get it corrected 3) Asking questions is often the best way to learn anything. As a scholar, I know you will appreciate a source, so see s:Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Tractate Avot/Chapter 2/5 or he:wikt:לא הבישן למד ולא הקפדן מלמד for the original versions . -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

SPLIT

I am still unable to understand that why we can not distinguish between Khazars and Khazar Khaganate. The Khaganate was a political entity, a state. Its history is not equal with Khazar people. This article should negotiate the history of Khazar people, their cultural aspects, beliefs, origin etc. Moreover the article is too long...Fakirbakir (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you remove the too long template, and reintroduce it, if unsatisfied, when the article has been rewritten succinctly, from top to bottom. It will probably be much shorter. Patience. In any case, folks are busy on it, and Khazaria wasn't written in a day. Well, the article we had was written in a daze, perhaps. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But my main problem is still unanswered (Khazar people vs. Khazar Khaganate).Fakirbakir (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The two are indistinguishable, what is there to answer? The Khazar people lived as long as the Khazar Khanate. Splitting the article would create the most disasterous effect because it is almost impossible to assign the current article's contents to one of the two.Al Khazar 01:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

State history is not equal with people's history.....What is your logic? Short lived states have their own articles as Carpatho-Ukraine (existed only a day) or Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic (existed six days) but long lived states like the Khazar Khaganage (it lasted more than 400 years) do not deserve a page?! Fakirbakir (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be a huge undertaking involving a lot of work: Summaries of each page will have to be written for the other, moving the references will be difficult, and disputes are sure to arise over what will move and what will stay. Removing the political history from this page will basically leave the Origins and Religions. Are you prepared to add the content necessary for the "people's history" you propose? Nothing is stopping you from doing so. We are busy trying to bring the page up to basic competence. If you are willing to do the extensive work necessary to undertake your proposed split, then please map out a way forward. But tagging the page and demanding that others complete such a huge project is not helpful. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The rest

I only have 3 more working days before leaving for Germany. This has taken longer than expected. I'll make some points.

• The text is a huge dispersed missmash of data under separate sections, that should be threshed or integrated into a chronological-thematic order.

Proposed structure

• (A)Before the Byzantine and Arab war/alliance section, we need a general statement about the formation of the Khazar qaganate/state post 630 until 740. This should deal with institutions like the dual kingship, customary practices, related to cult, religion, and the military organization, with its praetorian comitatus and the larger army.
• (B)The Byzantium/Umayyad-Abbasid bit are more or less shaped to bring us down to 740s-50s.
• (C)The ca 740 conversion to Judaism of the elite has several readings, aside from sceptics. As I see the evidence, this seems normal for a nomadic elite that has settled into empire.Golden gives many examples of central Asian tribal conversion to higher religions. It makes geopolitical sense, since the two empires that most countered on its flanks had, respectively, proselytising Abrahamic faiths, and the assert its autonomy, it appears the ruling class chose a distinct faith, the third monotheism. It is unlikely that this became a mass religion, highly unlikely. The Hebrew letters controversy should be very succinctly summed up there.
• (D)The northern Russian flank. Introduced by a bit about the transformation of the settled nomads into traders between the three empires, pushing north, and eventually encountering opposition which assumed strength enough to overwhelm them. Unbeaten by Cristian Byzantium and the Islamic caliphats, they fell to the rough new men from the northern Volga.
• (E) The demise of the state, with sources dealing with possible dispersals, esp to Hungary, where the links are strongest. All the stuff below on separate post-fall settlements integrated here.
• (F)Final bit about the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory, no more than a brief summary of its status (quite minoritarian). I've already given a draft of that up the page.

Other than this I think everything else should be chucked out. The article shouldn't have swabs of incidental material, genetic arguments, or detailed expatiations on the Ashkenazi hypothesis. If anyone wants to beat that drum, they should do it on a fork, not here. Minority hypotheses on an historic, but obscure if once great people, where piecing together exact information is rare, and fantasies flourish, is not acceptable. Several serious scholars have entertained the view, their colleagues stay silent, dismiss it, or get outraged. But that tiff should not mar a page that should be predominantly ethnographic and historic. If this were done, we might get this back to the 70,000 range, which is the recommended limit. It means bulldozing or shearing off a lot of stuff, but if something like that is done, we will have a well-formatted, succinct wiki page which, by not repeating the excesses of net stuff on khararia, or catering to fringe-ist appetites for just-so stories, will probably give the internet a lucid overview of a garbled topic. Suggestions? (I'll now sleep on mine).Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To bring this article back to the 70,000 is probably the worst action one could possible preform for this article. There is nothing wrong with the size whatsoever and the only evident problem is the fact that the controversy of their religion is about +40% of the article. The details not regarding their religion is also quite absent in the article and many important facts about the peoples' lifestyles and culture are ommitted. The is due to being seen as unimportant by the editors who are obsessed with proving/disproving the link between Khazars and Jews. In conclusion, I think that the Khazars article should be continuously expanded with crucial, yet, organised information. Another thing I should mention is that the topic of this article is quite interesting to me and I would love to see it become a Good or even a Featured article here on Wikipedia.Al Khazar (talk) 1:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think both Shrike and myself pointed out above that the current introduction using their Hebrew name in the first place (and other linguistically unconnected language after Hebrew) is wrong. As in the case of Latin and Roman Empire, the same pattern should be applied here and Khazars should be introduced only through their Turkic name. Concerning removals from this text, as many editors stated that the main/only reason why someone would visit this page is related to the Khazar theory I do not see problems with the length of this subject covered by this page. Regarding this issue, I presume everyone would be interested in genetic section of this article which should stay. The same is truth about the academic opinion on this subject. A Concerning other related issues, any concrete proposal for selective removals/editions regarding this theory (and related issues) should be presented and discussed here.--Tritomex (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"There is nothing wrong with the size " (by Al Khazar) I hope it was a joke....But you can delete the "not too important" or "controversial" parts in order to reach the recommended size instead of splitting the article.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is nothing wrong with the size. Since you have no true purpose of being here, why don't you go to the Roman Empire, Han and Tang Dynasty articles and complain about their length? The last thing this article needs is a split and this would result in a similar fate of the Hunnic Empire being created from the Huns article. PS: It's highly unlikely anyone would vote for a split.--Al Khazar 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex. Both Shrike and you misunderstand all the many responses your single objection elicited. In any case, I won't repeat the obvious, but simply note what you appear to have missed. In response to your issue with this, I gave a citation from Edward Luttwak for using the Hebrew term to gloss Khazars. He has no problem with it, nor do scholars who are experts in the field. Nor does any other language version of wikipedia I've consulted find it problematical. Only you do. You've got no argument, so just drop it.

By the way, congratulations. Your English here is vastly improved.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had much time today, so as to your second bit re genetics, I don't think a major set of genetic papers glossing what, on the page, will be just several sentences alluding to this minority thesis, can be justified except by claiming that the the hypothesis has been resolved (WP:TRUTH), i.e. the science of genetics. If you studied your sources you would be less confident even there. Ostrer does not 'rebut' the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory tout court. He quite openly allowed that there may well be a Khazar component in Ashkenazis. But then, geneticists are, C.D. Darlington apart, notoriously poor historians and this page should stick to history, and not squabbles about a minor theory.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that Tritomex wants to give more weight than Nishidani to the Ashkenazi genetics story, in this article. I think we can not avoid mentioning it on the Jewish genetics article, and I think if there was a strong body of good sources with a clear "mainstream" we could do a bit more in this article, but basically we have to keep in mind that this article is not about Ashkenazi Jews and there is still no specific study into Khazar DNA itself. It would be great if some researcher published work on ancient Khazar DNA, but that has not happened yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not get "many responses" regarding the obvious fact that Hebrew was not the language of Khazars or that contemporary historian chronicles about Khazars were not written in Hebrew language. Regarding Golden claims that even very rare Hebrew texts like Kievan Leter are not associated with Khazars,(which was not commented at all) this issue needs to be resolved. I propose only the Turkic name of Khazars for the lead, as in the case of Romans their Latin name went in to the lead.

Whatever Ostrrer said, he is WP:RS and one of the most respected scholar from this field. Although I do not share your opinion regarding his findings, direct citations and quotes from his books could be helpful for the genetic sections. Again, his views are reliable for this question and my personal views on this subject are irrelevant. Personally I do not think that all human population geneticists are "notoriously poor historians", Ostrrer is certainly not. However such claims (as in the case of my analysis of Elhaik papers) could be seen as WP:OR. Regarding Andrew Lancaster comments on Genetic Studies on Jews, although irrelevant to this subject and although that article should not deal directly with Khazars, the Khazar theory is mentioned there directly and indirectly many times. --Tritomex (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex.

1. Concerning the languages at the opening, I personally can see arguments for and against reducing the number of languages we use, but it is not like the Romans, whose own documents are dominated by their own language. Khazars are known from diverse neighbours, few of whom wrote in Turkic languages. Maybe we could just have a little straw poll about which languages to include, because it seems a relatively unimportant subject.

2. I still don't get your point about the genetics. No one is arguing for censoring this article and avoiding all mention of genetics, but surely you have to admit that there is very little that has been published about Khazar DNA as such, apart from the tenuous proposed link to later peoples?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex. Your argument is frankly just silly, and making again a huge issue of nothing.So, what's it got to do with the price of fish? It's arduous trying to sieve through dozens of complex multidisciplinary books and articles to ascertain a reasonable narrative over several sections, but happy work, if only it wasn't continually disrupted by a pettifogging monomania of the Shakespearean type. Much of what you say is just, well, not worth responding to. I'll respond only when I can see that enough editors actually working on the text think there is merit in something you might propose. Keep it brief, to the point, and cogent.

To return to the point, which is how to gloss in the intro. names used to denote people (or the places where they lived(Troy or Carthage)) who have disappeared from history, or were much written about in the past but now a much reduced minority, see Goths, Cimmerians,Circassians, etc, we often include the terms they were known by in contemporary sources written in other languages. The Etruscans, who are a comparable mystery, used the autonym Rasenna, the Greeks called them Τυρσηνοί, and we know them by one of the ethnonyms employed for them in Latin (Etrusci, Tusci, the latter giving us Tuscans). You and Shrike assume that an ethnonym must be an autonym. The premise is flawed.

As for Ostrer, I don't express opinions about his genetics. His view is that one cannot rule out a Khazar component in Ashkenazi genes, so the citation from the Jerusalem Post representing his views as a confutation of that thesis is pure POV pushing. Yawn. I have opinions about his grasp of history, which is so poor he even believes the population of the United Monarchy under David around 1000 BCE was roughly 5 million, when even in the prosperous expanding era two centuries later it was probably no more than 800,000 or 900,000.Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately there is almost nothing about Khazar DNA as in the case of most ancient peoples. However as we know their relationship to Ashkenazi Jews and other peoples ( which certainly attracts great attention in public) was subject of numerous genetic studies.

2.Almost all contemporary chronicles about Khazars were written in Arabic language. Few works like those of Constantine Porphyrogenitus were not, yet as in the case of Eurasian Avars there is also a solution to avoid the inclusion of any specific language in the lead. If we connect the languages at the opening to the languages used by contemporary historians of Khazars, certainly Arabic should go in the lead. Concerning Ostrer his views on this subject are clear. Regarding Khazar theory (or hypothesis), if there was any hypothetical Khazar gene flow to the contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish community, he argues against possibility that such gene flow was substantial or large scale. Although unrelated to the subject, as it was mentioned above, I did not find anywhere that Ostrrer claimed that "United Monarchy under David around 1000 BCE was roughly 5 million" so maybe if you are already making such digressions, you should provide some links.--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As said, you have no arguments against kuzarim, and don't reply to the several arguments I made exposing the flaws in your assumptions, so this point is dead, and not worth arguing about.

Read page 29. You'll miss the point if you do not twig that he is taking as an historical fact the legendary census at 2 Samuel 24:1-9. The figures there, according to normative demographic calculations, imply 5,000,000, i.e. probably ten times the figure for the dawn of the Ist millenium. In other words, Ostrer has no knowledge of historical demographics, which is a fundamental consideration in interpreting such data . That sort of simple flaw from citing unreliable primary documents while ignoring a century of scholarship is all over his book, which, on genetics, is quite interesting. Unfortunately, he has great difficulty in connecting the area he knows eruditely with history, like most genetic papers cited here.

I asked you to explain how the Ostrer quote from the Jerusalem Post article, included in the article, got there, when that quote contradicts what Ostrer actually said in his book. You still haven't answered. Please do. Did you edit that in? You've just admitted it is an incorrect representation of his position. Why don't you fix it then?

where does Ostrer in his book argue:'against (the) possibility that such gene flow was substantial or (on a) large scale?.'Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Did I missed some discussion related the Hebrew translation of Khazar names, still I do not find any policy based arguments for placing Hebrew in the lead while your lonely claim that Khazars were mentioned in Hebrew writings (which is regarding Kievien Letters not supported by Golden) do not justify placing Hebrew in the lead as almost all medieval chronicles about them (even Jewish) were write in Arabic. I do not think you can lonely declare this question "dead" nor did you "exposed flaws" in my assumptions. I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on this matter as you are (as far as I see ) the only editor refusing to accept the removal of Hebrew translation of Khazars name from the first place. Regarding articles you cited: Troy, the language of Trojans (Greek) was placed in the first place, as in the case of Goths (Gothic language was placed in the lead) while in cases like Cimmerians where their linguistic and ethnic origin is not known, the language from where their name was introduced to European historic scholarship was used. Κιμμέριοι, comes from Herodotus and the name which modern scholarship is using (regarding Cimmerians) is therefore Greek, as their original name remains unknown. This is off course not the case with Khazars, as modern scholarship do not refer to them as Khuzarim, nor they have spoken Hebrew language, while almost all contemporary historians of Khazars refer to them in Arabic. Regarding Adyghe people again their native Adyghe name (Adyghe: Адыгэ) was placed in the lead. So it is clear from all Wikipedia articles, including those you cited that wherever the original native name of ancient peoples were available (which in our case would be Turkic) this was placed in the lead. Wherever the original name/language of any historic people is unavailable the language of the most prominent historic sources (covering them) was used (which in our case would be Arabic in lead)

I don't know to which quote in Jerusalem Post, you are referring. Regarding Ostrrer, in his trans-genome genetic study together with Atzmon they concluded "Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs." Regarding your claims that Ostrrer assumed on page 29 of his book that there were 5 million Israelites living in Davidic Israel, this is again not truth as he simply refers to biblical accounts without anywhere claiming that this numbers are historic facts. Your continues WP:OR efforts to discredit a senior scholar is against Wikipedia rules. --Tritomex (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, more crap. It's pointless trying to negotiate with you. What you appear to do is (a)ignore the substance of what your interlocutor is saying or(b) misunderstand it or (c) don't know so check wikipedia articles on the topic and work up a reply based on what you read there. Examples

Ostrer's remark can only come from the Bible, and biblical scholarship shows that the figure Ostrer cites is impossible. He doesn't know that, you don't either, and can't see the point I made.

You haven't read the article quoted at note 115. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, 'Jews: A religious group, people or race?,' at the [Jerusalem Post], 26 August, 2012?

'the language from where their name was introduced to European historic scholarship was used. Κιμμέριοι, comes from Herodotus'.

My conclusion? (Apart from the fact that the sentence is meaningless in English) You evidently know nothing about ancient history, and must have been taken in by the following entry on the Serbian wikipedia:

Kимерани (грч. Κιμμέριοι - Kimmerioi) су били древни номадски народ који је током старог века насељавао северне обале Црног мора (култура Андроново). 'Већина информација o Кимеранима позната је 'из Херодотових дела који описује њихово бежање пред Скитима,' or perhaps even from the English entry Cimmerians, which is no better. Anyone familiar with ancient literature knows that's nonsense. I.e. They are mentioned in Assyrian and Hebrew sources. Indeed, three centuries before Herodotus the name apears in Homer, generating a huge textual controversy

ἡ δ᾽ ἐς πείραθ᾽ ἵκανε βαθυρρόου Ὠκεανοῖο.

ἔνθα δὲ Κιμμερίων ἀνδρῶν δῆμός τε πόλις τε,

ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ κεκαλυμμένοι: οὐδέ ποτ᾽ αὐτοὺς

ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν,

οὔθ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἂν στείχῃσι πρὸς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα,

οὔθ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἂψ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανόθεν προτράπηται,

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ νὺξ ὀλοὴ τέταται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσι.(Odyssey 11:13-19)

Fucked if I'm willing to keep wasting valuable time blogging with a stonewall. If I want that I'll convert to Zen Buddhism where the practice is praised as a means of illumination if you do it for 9 years. I'm going to work on the article, and actually do something productive, like reading intelligent scholars on the Khazars, so goodbye for now. By the way, you screwed up on the quotation from Atzmon. The next paragraph says the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you are continuing with this digressions while both Shrike and myself asked you was to adhere to rules used in similar articles

If you failed to understand I will repeat:

(1) The Hebrew term Gomer and Assyrian Gimer often associated with Cimmerians has nothing to do with the fact that their language is unknown or with the fact that their English name comes from Greek language.

(2) Their English name (Cimmerians) comes from Greek language and from Κιμμέριοι that is why Wikipedia refer to them in Greek.

(3) For the peoples whose language is available, Wikpedia regularly (as presented above) use their native language in the lead, while for ancient people whose language is unknown (like Cimmerians) Wikipedia uses the name derived from most prominent historic sources about them). In this case Hebrew is not the language of Khazars, nor is the language of historic chronicles about the Khazars.

I will come back shortly with concrete proposal for the language in the lead.--Tritomex (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm way behind schedule, and my offline rough draft still needs massive checking, given the often chaotic nature of even the best sources, for the rewriting I proposed. The problem with ancient history especially is that it is all theory, reconstructed from slippery, scarce or tendentious sources in multiple languages. I'm not happy with what I've added here, and, once through, will then re-edit it to try to get narrative fluency etc. By the way Laszlo, is there any way that that huge column of Russian and Ukrainian columns can be reorganized so that we don't have the eyesore of a large blank space between the rise of Khazaria and the exposition on the state?

In any case, apologies for my footdragging. I'll get back to this sometime towards the next weekend. Good editing in the meantime (and I hope this inane desire to erase all mention of Kuzarim from the lead is dropped. I thought about this, and probably the sensible thing to do is to arrange the ethnonyms there in order of their appearance in the original primary sources (leaving out Armenian and Georgian), after the modern Turkish and Tatar ethnonyms, i.e. Greek, Chinese, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Russian etc. I would remind Tritomex to observe that, like Luttwak (sensitive to a lot of things like this, being, besides a fine scholar, a survivor of the Holocaust) the The Jewish Virtual Library article takes the gloss 'Kuzarim' as perfectly normal, and explains indeed its utility since the vowel difference may offer clues as to the otherwise unknown Khazar word for themselves. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Language for the lead

As most of historical chronicles about Khazars comes from Arabic language, it would be logical to place Arabic in the lead. My proposal bellow is however to avoid any specific language in lead, as the term Khazar comes from Turkic language.

Proposal: The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who created one of the largest states of medieval Eurasia, Khazaria, with its capital at Atil. Khazaria was one of the major arteries of commerce between northern Europe and southwestern Asia. Commanding the western marches of the Silk Road, it played a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East, and Europe.--Tritomex (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the languages, I think Tritomex makes a fair point. I don't see the reason for using Hebrew in the introduction. Yes, the Khazars were (at least partly) Jewish, but they did not speak Hebrew, they did not influence today's Hebrew, nor today's Judaism. As far as I can tell, there is no connection at all between the Khazars and the Hebrew language. So on this particular topic, I think Tritomex makes a valid point.Jeppiz (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The Khazars didn't speak Greek or Russian or Tatar or Latin either. That's not what worries Tritomex. It's the single word Kuzarim, and to get rid of it he is forced to call for the removal of all words used in contemporary sources (save, predictably 'Arabic', even though Hasdai ibn Shaprut was writing about Khazars before the empire fell, and before most Arabic sources provided their accounts of the kingdom.

The Jewish Virtual Library has no problem with using Kuzarim along with the other terms, nor does Luttwak. Most wikipedia entries in other languages find nothing problematical in recording this. On wikipedia, RS usage is what determines content, and I've provided two such sources. He has no argument based on RS that indicate the impropriety of the association. All decisions should be made in terms of policy, and RS. Tritomex has provided no policy reason for his opposition, or for make the English wikipedia unique in its exclusion of ethnonyms for the Khazars in the literature of that period. He has ignored my evidence that RS dealing with that period gloss Khazars with Kuzarim. I fail to understand therefore, why off-the-top-of-the-head personal objections, with no basis in policy, should be treated seriously. I still think the objection is based on some obscure suspicion that somehow the notation Kuzarim, and support for it by an editor like myself, gives dreadful evidence for an Ashkenazi-Khazar link being pushed. If that were the case it would be inane. Tritomex is prepossessed by this thing, as witness his record. He has even falsified the whole genetic section by systematic suppression of the fact that these sources do not deal with the Khazars or, while doubting a 'large scale input' into the Ashkenazim, none the less do not exclude the possibility that Jews from Khazaria may have contributed to the Ashkenazi. That suspicion is, I believe, the only reason for his obsessive challenging of what no other wikipedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library or scholars like Luttwak find unusual.

p.s. I don't care one way or another about his obsession, except as it tends to promote a truth claim in defiance of the careful weighting of all scholarly theories for their major and minor weight in articles. None of these geneticists know how enormously complicated demographic shifts in the ME are. Even Elhaik seems to be unaware that a notable Jewish Armenian population disappeared by conversion into the Christian Armenian population which Elhaik uses as one of his proxies for the Khazars, and unwittingly therefore, by ignoring history, doesn't realize that his proxy for Jewish Khazars consists of a sample that includes Armenians who absorbed a large community of Jews, and would therefore in all likelihood cut a similar profile for Ashkenazis because both are of middle eastern origin, whatever profile the Khazars might have had. I'll believe Tritomex is serious on this when he reads his genetic papers and includes all the relevant remarks in Ostrer and Atzmon, which do not wholly exclude the very hypothesis he, over numerous pages, cites them as 'refuting'.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but Tritomex's motives aren't what we discuss. What I said is that I don't see any reason to give the name of the Khazars in Hebrew (or in Greek, or in Latin, or in Arabic etc.). Is there a reason to give the name of the Khazars in all these languages?Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cited the Goths and several others. Wikipedians do not agonize the worry beads over this widespread practice, and the Khazar entries in various languages indicate no other national group of editors has discovered this 'problem'. We do not know what Ethnonym they used. We know only how others described them, so we use those contemporary or near contemporary ethnonyms. I have provided sources that provide a warrant for this gloss (WP:Burden). Tritomex, in policy terms, must cite sources which back his personal opinion that there is something inappropriate in the association of exonyms with a people who lack an autonym. I find this obvious, but perhaps I suffer from autism.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But once again, is there are a reason to give the name of Khazars in a number of different languages they did not speak? It is not common practice on Wikipedia. Here are the corresponding articles for a number of peoples living in the same region today: Armenians (name only in Armenian), Chechens (name only in Chechen), Georgians (name only in Georgian), Turkish people (name only in Turkish), Russians (name only in Russian). Why do you think we should deviate from the standard practice and give the name of the Khazars in a number of languages they did not speak?Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) We don't know what language they spoke.

(b) We don't know their autonym

(c) They are known through foreign sources, save for the Hebrew correspondance. And therefore it is quite appropriate to list the major written outside traditional literature's names for them. Apart from Luttwak, and the Jewish Virtual Library, both good evidence that a Hebrew gloss, and s polylingual set of exonyms, is absolutely normal, here, I would add wikipedia practice.

(d) Most other wikipedias use this formula. This has stood a long time, unchallenged, and only one editor found it problematical. Within the English wikipedia, precedents and parallels are not infrequent.

(e) We have so far improved on the copy-and-paste behaviour elsewhere by actually independently sourcing these names. The Tatar name might be removed. But, in any case, compare the following similar cases, of peoples or places with foreign glosses because we lack the appropriate autonym, and must therefore rely on exonyms (The Chechens, Russians and Turks you instance are irrelevant, in my view, because all three have national literatures and autonyms. The Khazars (and Varangians) did not.

• The Khazars (Hebrew: כוזרים (Kuzarim),[4] Turkish: Hazarlar, Tatar: Xäzärlär, Greek: Χάζαροι, Arabic: خزر‎ (khazar), Russian: Хазары, Persian: خزر‎,Latin: Gazari/Cosri/Gasani)

Parallel uses of lists of exonyms

• (1) The Varangians or Varyags (Old Norse: Væringjar; Swedish: Väringar; Greek: Βάραγγοι, Βαριάγοι, Varangoi, Variagoi; Russian and Ukrainian: Варяги, Varyagi / Varyahy; Belarusian: Варагі, Varahi; Georgian: ვარიაგები, Variagebi) was the name given by Greeks and East Slavs to Vikings,

• (2)The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Greek Σκύθης, Σκύθοι), or Scyths /ˈsɪθ/, were an Iranian nomadic people[1][2][3][4]

• (3) Goths The Goths (Gothic: *Gut-þiuda,[1] *Gutans[2]; Old Norse: Gutar/Gotar; German: Goten; Latin: Gothi; Greek: Γότθοι, Gótthoi)

• (4) The Sarmatians (Latin: Sarmatæ or Sauromatæ, Greek: Σαρμάται, Σαυρομάται)

• (5)Etruscans In Attic Greek, the Etruscans were known as Τυρρηνοὶ (Tyrrhēnioi), earlier Tyrsenoi, from which the Romans derived the names Tyrrhēni (Etruscans), Tyrrhēnia (Etruria), and Mare Tyrrhēnum (Tyrrhenian Sea).[2] The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna.[3]

• (6)Amorite (Sumerian 𒈥𒌅 MAR.TU, Akkadian Tidnum or Amurrūm, Egyptian Amar, Hebrew אמורי ʼĔmōrī) refers to an ancient Semitic-speaking people

Places

• (1)Phoenicia (UK pron.: /fɨˈnɪʃə/, US /fəˈniːʃə/;[2] from the Greek: Φοινίκη: Phoiníkē; Arabic: بنيكنعان‎)

• (2) Canaan (Northwest Semitic knaʿn; Phoenician: 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍; Biblical Hebrew: כנען / knaʿn; Masoretic: כְּנָעַן / Kənáʿan; Arabic: كنعان‎ / Kan‘ān)

People

• (1) Kubrat or Kurt (Bulgarian: Кубрат; Ukrainian: Кубрат; Chuvash: Купрат, Kuprat; Greek: Χουβράτης, Mari: Чумбылат, meaning "Wolf" in Old Turkic)

Note in this last that, as with Varangian and Khazar terminology, we always approach the 'name' with foreign glosses precisely because these people are not known by their own literature or language records. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not "worry" just about Khuzarim being placed in the lead. What I do worry as well is a simple and objective fact that there is no justification for placing the Hebrew name of the Khazars in the first place. Nishadani introduced a kind of rule that the name of Khazars should be spelled in languages of all historic sources about the Khazars. If this is applied certainly Arabic would be placed in the first place as almost all medieval chronicles about the Khazars were written in Arabic. However I agree with Jeepiz. I do not see reason for using any of this languages and certainly no reason for such self established rules I agree that we should not deviate from the standard practice and give the name of the Khazars in a number of languages they did not speak.

Therefore If there is no objection, I will remove all this languages from the lead in the coming days as the discussion indicates that no one beside Nishadani supports this kind of lead. Regarding the examples that Nishadani misused here, its obvious that this examples have nothing to do with Khazars and in many cases indicates the opposite he wished to prove:(Canaan (Northwest Semitic knaʿn;), (Goths The Goths (Gothic: *Gut-þiuda) (Amorite Sumerian 𒈥𒌅 MAR.TU) or (The Varangians or Varyags Old Norse: Væringjar; ) clearly do not equals placing Kuzarim in the first place of the lead for Khazars, as most of this people actually spoke this languages in the same way as Khazars spoke Turkic and not Hebrew language. --Tritomex (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, Nishidani. The article on the Varangians also look like a very bad one and I will give it some attention. And you're right that we cannot know what language(s) the Khazars spoke. What we do know is that they certainly didn't speak Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Arabic. They did come into contact with peoples speaking Russian, Greek and Arabic so there might be an argument for those languages. As for Hebrew and Latin, the Khazars did not speak those languages and they did not come into contact with any people speaking those languages, so I don't find them relevant for the lead.Jeppiz (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking for years at numerous inner Asian articles, fixing one or two, but most Eurasian peoples articles and language articles are a total mess, often sinocentric, but invariably patched up mosaics of googled tidbits.

You raise two points. One has as a premise that the ethnonym in the lead should reflect an autonym, and, as a consequence, exclude exonyms. I can't see any policy basis for that objection.

I gave examples from similar articles where we lack an autonym, and therefore the missing words are supplied by the exonyms we have in contemporary literary sources written by contiguous populations, or by cultures that described this otherwise unknown population. I.e., I provided precedent for using these names in those articles, not the majority, where a peculiar problem of ethnonym designation exists, as with the Varangians.

We appear to know that, within Khazaria there was probably a Turkic-or Finno-Ugrian elite 'dialect' for court purposes, but that the 28 other ethnoi within the state spoke a large number of languages, from IE languages like Sogdian, Armenian, Iranian, through Caucasian languages, to Semitic languages, given the migratory shifts northwards. Mosques, synagogues and churches existed side by side, and in those communities the liturgy may well have been in Arabic, Hebrew and Greek. We do know that at a certain period, a distinctive version of Hebrew was used in court correspondance. We know that the important groups of Khazar traders who played such a notable role in setting up trade station up the Volga, and all the way through to Kiev, must have had Slavonic languages.

I think, with all due respect, that your premise is rather (western) eurocentrically modern, conflating the idea of a modern state as going par passu with a national tongue. Pre-modern states weren't like that. Very large numbers of people in premodern Eastern states spoke several languages and dialects, even in their families. George Steiner was trilingual from birth. What is his 'mother tongue'? One of the intermediaries between the Abbasid kingdom and the Khazars was Sallam al-Tardjuman, (Dunlop thought him Jewish, others have hypothesized that he was a Khazar (the one doesn't exclude the other)) who was indispensable to the courts, because he could cross-interpret in 30 languages, as his as Arabic monicker suggests. Perrhaps folks are uncomfortable with what I am doing here, i.e., culling the sources to show how curiously variegated the Khazars were, in order to, in a sense, retrieve their own heterogeneous world from its sorry state of being a gambit in monolinear ethnic battles. The lead is important to me because, apart from it being acceptable in policy, it has wiki precedents, and has only been challenged as odd by Tritomex, on the spurious grounds that any hint of Jewishness in Khazaria might feed antisemitiv hostilities to Jews and Israel, which is patently nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to what you write. Quite the contrary, I agree with it. But if you excuse me, it's not really relevant for the point. Khazaria was probably a multilingual state to at least some degree and I haven't questioned that. What I have questioned is to insert languages that clearly weren't spoken there, nor in neighbouring states.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Mosques, synagogues and churches existed side by side, and in those communities the liturgy may well have been in Arabic, Hebrew and Greek". This is as much true for Khazaria as it is true for any modern state or society. It would be paradoxical to use for example Arabic for Bosniaks as the liturgical language of their religion is Arabic. I agree with Jeppiz balanced and objective evaluation and I support the proposal for leaving Russian Arabic and Greek in the lead; It is obvious that Hebrew was not a spoken language even among Jews from after 200 CE (or even before) (not to mention Khazars) Regarding questions raised by Nishidani and related to my motivations, which is certainly not the topic here, my motivation is to have an objective and well written article. If there are no objections, I will replace the language in the lead as per proposal.--Tritomex (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Arabic is used in mosques for every Muslim population, but we don't put the Arabic version of their names for that reason.Jeppiz (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm amazed that no one can give me a policy-based reason for this exclusion. Russian chronicles postdate the Hebrew letters by centuries. Excluding Hebrew is nonsensical given that many authorities consider that Hebrew was quite probably the language used by the Khazar chancellery. Arabic chronicles are much later than the Hebrew letters. Yet Tritomex wants to retain them, and exclude Hebrew. On what logical or policy grounds? None. It's pure dislike.

I strongly object to removing anything on subjective grounds. I have givcen (a) RS glosses from Luttwak, and the Jewish Virtual encyclopedia (b) I have provided several instances of parallel multilingual glosses from other wikipedia articles where the 'autonym' is not known (c) I have asked for a policy reason, which must formally justify removals like this. In no case have either of you provided RS, arguments against the other wiki pages, or policy reasons to counter my points. You have both simply asserted an opinion. WP:CONSENSUS says consensus does not rely on numbers but on cogency of rational, policy based argument. Jesus, how am I to cope with the account on the building of the Sarkel fortress, which played a key role till its destruction, when the only languages we have that describe it are Hebrew and Greek (apart from a Circassian tale). We don't even know the exact Khazar phonetics for Sarkel because the Hebrew texts have two different pronunciations which Greek doesn't supply.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can cite a policy for every editing decision (or we might be able to cite several which imply different decisions in many cases). Just as an editor it seems to me that we have a very long list of translations in this article's opening sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have given you a policy-based reason, I find Hebrew irrelevant for a people that never spoke Hebrew nor came into contact with any people speaking Hebrew. Of course this all changes if there are sources saying the opposite. Above you write that " many authorities consider that Hebrew was quite probably the language used by the Khazar chancellery. " Could I ask you to please direct us to some of those sources? If good sources meeting WP:RS makes a case for Hebrew being used by the Khazars outside synagogues, I'll gladly reconsider my position.Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cite the policy. (b) Lajos Ligeti (there is a Hungarian wiki article on him, unfortunately no one has written the corresponding English one) argued that there was a Hebrew section in the Khazar chancellery, and his view has been endorsed as probable by Marcel Erdal. See Erdal 2007 pp.98-99 (from memory) on our page. I'd give you the link but my computer connection has been broken 8 times this afternoon under thunderstorms, meaning several large edits lost, and even this won't get up unless I rush. If you can't search it, I'll post it when the weather clears. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, there's no hurry. Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian, so could you kindly translate the relevant part, and also link to the publisher?Jeppiz (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If such extra ordinary claim has verification in WP:RS that many authorities consider that Hebrew was quite probably the language used by the Khazar chancellery. I would also not object the placing of Hebrew in the lead. As I am Hungarian I would be glad to see this sources and to translate them. As from tomorrow I will be absent for few days, I would kindly ask Nishidani to provide this link. Preliminary nowhere on page 98-99 from Erdal such claim exist. Contrary to this on page 96 Erdal explains that the Kievan Letter is unrelated to Khazars.--Tritomex (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, we seems to be heading towards an agreement. Can I propose that for now we take out Hebrew and Latin, as we don't (yet) have any indication of these languages being used even close to the Khazars. If we get the "many authorities" who state that Hebrew probably was used by the Khazar chancellery, and these are WP:RS we can insert Hebrew again. I haven't seen any argument in favor of Latin. That should satisfy everyone, right?Jeppiz (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is quite unfair, not to speak of irregular. I stated that several scholars of Khazaria, among them Lajos Ligeti and Marcel Erdal, think it quite probable that Hebrew was used in the chancellery of the state of Khazaria,(i.e. it was an official language). I was asked to provide evidence for this, because, Jeppiz, as you say, that would indicate that Hebrew had some official recognition in the affairs of state and therefore justify its inclusion. From memory I gave pp.98-99 of the book edited by Peter Golden, and promised, if other editors could not access it, to provide a link where Marcel Erdal and Lajos Ligeti's views on precisely this probability are set forth.

Tritomex checks and writes:

Preliminary nowhere on page 98-99 from Erdal such claim exist.

Well, again, as I've with great weariness noted for several months, Tritomex just hasn't read a source or if he has, refuses to accept what an RS clearly states. Compare Erdal's remarks on Ligeti's conclusion, which he backs, on, precisely pp.98-99 of the book.

I've done an extraordinary amount of work providing several cross-arguments, textual evidence, policy requests, wiki parallels, and evidence here that Hebrew, among distinguished scholars, is not excluded as a probable chancellery language in the state of Khazaria. I even ran up a new page on Ligeti because though my remark was misread (due perhaps to my haste in writing under a thunderstorm) to mean I was quoting a Hungarian wiki page, and not Golden's book, which we use throughout here, I believe in going the extra mile if an editor asks me to. Result? Let's remove it! per Nishidani's agreement?!!! I'm fucked if I know what's going on.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the first to say that you've done a great job! Even an outstanding one. All I am challenging is one minor detail, should we include Hebrew and Latin translations of the Khazars' names or not. As you said, you cited from memory and if it's not those precise pages, it's certainly no fault of yours. All I'm asking for is the sources, preferably quotes, that say Hebrew was used by the Khazars.Jeppiz (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, pal. I cited from memory Golden's book. All anyone was required to do was google 'World of the Khazars+chancellery' and pp.98-99 would come up for view. Then Tritomex, who says he checked, said no such thing was on those pages. You took his word for it. I come back and give you a direct link. Now you say it's still iffy (haven't you googled p.98?)

Ligeti on the ‘I have read’ on the Hebrew letter of the Khazars, held that everything points to the existence of a Hebrew language chancellery with the Khazars.' p.98

The chancellery of the Jewish state of the Khazars is therefore also likely to have used Hebrew writing even if the official language was a Turkic one.’ p.99

My memory (from my draft, almost completed, happened to be correct), but anyone following my indications could see that, as usual, Tritomex lies through his teeth in order to get his way. Perhaps you haven't edited with before, so I don't hold that against you.

Well, no offense. But I'm old, and time is short, and important to me. I'm buggered if I want to waste another week of time better spent finishing this. Some time, presumably in the distant future, when editors tire of the stalemate that usually stops all serious work on articles Tritomex edits holds the rest of the article in its icy grip, and think I might be useful, they can buzz me on my page if I'm still around. I've wasted far too much time on defending commonsense edits to care to waste another minute on this. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but ironically page 98 is one of the few that I cannot preview. I see pages 96, 97, 99 and 100 well. What I see on page 99 does not say that Hebrew was used, it only talks about "Hebrew writing". Yiddish was written with Hebrew writing but is Germanic, Ladino was written with Hebrew writing but is Romance. On page 99 I cannot find anything that even suggests the Hebrew language was used by the Khazars. Sorry for not being able to view page 98, I'll try tomorrow from a different computer.Jeppiz (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You originally wrote:-

If good sources meeting WP:RS makes a case for Hebrew being used by the Khazars outside synagogues, I'll gladly reconsider my position.Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence above, cited from pages 98,99, shows that distinguished scholars entertain the view that there is a reasonable likelihood Hebrew was used in the chancellery of the Khazar state. The chancellery of a state is not a synagogue. I satisfied this request for non-synogogue use, by providing evidence that it may well have been a chancellery language. You said 'use of Hebrew outside synagogues', and I gave you an example of scholars taking seriously the idea that it was used by the bureaucracy of the Khazar state. You won't however reconsider. Now you ask for proof it was 'used by the Khazars'. No one fucking language was used by the Khazars: 28 languages and dialects were used. All the evidence we have is that the ruling class spoke some central eurasian tongues, and used Hebrew in some official correspondance. The only examples we have of Khazar texts are in Hebrew. Qagan Joseph, the head of the Khazar state corresponded in Hebrew with Hasdai ibn Shaprut, for YHWH's sake. For the head of the Khazar state Hebrew was one of his languages, for wikipedians writing about his state, no. You can't hardly have not read Khazar Correspondence,Schechter Letter. It is simply unbelievable that, in the face of this, one can still hold a serious objection to using a Hebrew gloss in the lead.

If again,my once more providing what you appear to request, just leads to more hairsplitting it's called changing the goalposts. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From the source provided we can see totally different picture than Nishidani try to convince us. This section begun on P:95 and is related to Kievian Letters. Erdal explains that the Kievan Letter does not bear the names of Khazar converts to Judaism, but the name of Jews who adopted local names. Referring to Torpusman comprehensive work in Khazar linguistics Erdal states "In his opinion the Non Jewish names of this document are likely to be Slavic and not Turkic; This would again make Khazars vanish from the latter. Orjol 1997 has indeed shown that one of the names, if not two is Slavic"

Erdal states "The conclusion would be that the document signatories (or their fathers mentioned by their patronyms) who have non Jewish names would not be Khazars who converted to Judasism but Jews who adopted non Jewish names." On Page 97 Erdal explains that the language of "recognito" used here is not Hebrew and that the letters itself were not sent from Kiev (from Khazrs) but to Kiev from Danube Bolgar. The unrelated nature of this letter to Khazars is further explained at page 98 where Erdal explains that the 7th century Khazar word "turdun" "had not changed the intervocalic d to r as Khazars would probably never have carried out this sound change. This would be further indication against Khazaria as a source of letter" Now on page 98 Erdal points to further problems with Khazarian connection to Kievian Hebrew letter by asking "Wheter it could be mere coincidence that on Hebrew letter of the Khazars the recognito analogues to legi "I have red" on Latin documents is NOT worded in the letter. Reflecting to Ligeti claims that a Hebrew language chancellery may have existed among Khazars, Erdal states that even if such chancellery existed (nowhere presenting this chancellery as something separated from Jews who actually lived in Khazaria) Jews used Hebrew letters to write in NON Hebrew languages" and that the language of Khazars was Turkic (not Hebrew) and Erdal here points to numerous examples. Further on page 99 Erdal points out that the letter came from "different state" and not Khazaria. It is obvious from this that Nishidani claim that "many authorities consider that Hebrew was quite probably the language used by the Khazar chancellery." does not stand. Hebrew was even by sole source NOT the language of chancellery but this hypothetical chancellery whose existence Erdal do not reaffirm may have used Hebrew alphabet and Turkic language. --Tritomex (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you ever actually try to understand what you are writing.Nothing above is relevant to my quotes. Indeed you don't understand what you are transcribing.I.e.

the 7th century Khazar word "turdun" "had not changed the intervocalic d to r as Khazars would probably never have carried out this sound change.

turdan is not a Khazar word. Anyone who is familiar with the literature of Khazars would know that tudun is one of the commonest words discussed. Your *'Turdan', even if a slip, makes no sense with what follows, since thus spelt, it has no 'intervocalic d', since it is preceded by 'r', unlike tudun where d is preceded by a vowel. You haven't got the foggiest notion of what you transcription means. It's just sand in the eyes to cover up the embarrassing fact that Khazar documents exist only in Hebrew, and that it is thought quite probable that language was used in the state chancellery. You can blow and blather all you like. But you cannot discredit the evidence of the Khazar correspondance which, on its own, independently of my many arguments, would show how stupid and obtusely (ideologically) motivated this objection is. But, you've won. Attrition, and talking your way around, over, under an argument always manages to fuck up clear sighted editing. I'm off. And I lay dollars to cents that, as elsewhere, the article will remain dead of its feet, because editors prefer blogging to actually fixing articles. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the source you have cited that Hebrew language was NOT the language of Khazars state chancellery, (which was as per source you have cited Turkic) and that Kievian letter DID NOT refer to Khazars. Also there are NO "many authorities (who)consider that Hebrew was quite probably the language used by the Khazar chancellery." but a single Hungarian linguists who proposed a possibility that a chancellery using Turkic language and Hebrew alphabet existed in Khazaria.--Tritomex (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The genetics section. Manipulation

Since I said above Tritomex (or whoever) has completely screwed up the genetics section to push a POV (and personally I don't think the Khazar theory stands on the evidence so far) and since, if a debate ensues on my remarks, I won't be here to check for several days, this for the record is what I wrote in notes analysing this section.

• Note 109 M. F. Hammer,et al., Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes PNAS Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 June 6; 97(12): 6769–6774.

This has no mention of Khazars.

• Note 110 Nicholas Wade "Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora". New York Times. May 9 2000)

Wade is a science, environment and defense reporter, making his own interpretation of a paper that no where ‘refutes’ the Khazar theory. Dubious RS.

• Note 111 G.Atzmon, L.Hao, I.Pe'er, C.Velez, A.Pearlman, P.F.Palamara, B.Morrow, E.Friedman, C.Oddoux, E.Burns and H.Ostrer. Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Midde Eastern Ancestry. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 03 June 2010.

refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. (Abstract)

The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times, when proselytism was a common Jewish practice. During Greco-Roman times, recorded mass conversions led to 6 million people practicing Judaism in Roman times or up to 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and 'is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs.32 (the reference is to Koestler’s book) The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies.

THe text continues however:_

Admixture with local populations, including Khazars and Slavs, may have occurred subsequently during the 1000 year (2nd millennium) history of the European Jews. Based on analysis of Y chromosomal polymorphisms, Hammer estimated that the rate might have been as high as 0.5% per generation or 12.5% cumulatively (a figure derived from Motulsky), although this calculation might have underestimated the influx of European Y chromosomes during the initial formation of European Jewry.15 Notably, up to 50% of Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosomal haplogroups (E3b, G, J1, and Q) are of Middle Eastern origin,15 whereas the other prevalent haplogroups (J2, R1a1, R1b) may be representative of the early European admixture.20 The 7.5% prevalence of the R1a1 haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews has been interpreted as a possible marker for Slavic or Khazar admixture because this haplogroup is very common among Ukrainians (where it was thought to have originated), Russians, and Sorbs, as well as among Central Asian populations, although the admixture may have occurred with Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians, rather than Khazars.12,35

In our article quotes this as:-

"Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Khazars or Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry."

True, but the editor neatly omitted the paragraph which says a Khazar element cannot be ruled out.

• Note 112 Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, Ariella Oppenheim. "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", (The American Journal of Human Genetics (2001), Volume 69, number 5. pp. 1095–112).

In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors. (True, but so what?)

• Note 113Behar Doron M., Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Hammer MF, Bulygina E, Rosengarten D, Jones AL, Held K et al. (2003). "Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries" (PDF). Am. J. Hum. Genet 73 (4): 768–779. doi:10.1086/378506. PMC 1180600. PMID 13680527. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/400971.pdf.

The text reads:- If a European origin for the Ashkenazi Levite haplogroup R1a1 component is accepted as a reasonable possibility, it is of interest to speculate further on the possible timing, location, and mechanism of this event. Because the modal haplotype of haplogroup R1a1 found in the Ashkenazi Levites is found at reasonably high frequency throughout the eastern European region, it is not possible to use genetic information to pinpoint the exact origin of any putative founder from the currently available data sets. Intriguingly, the Sorbian tongue, relexified with a German vocabulary, has been proposed as the origin of Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazim, but there has been no suggestion of an association between Ashkenazi Levites in particular and the Sorbian language. One attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century (Dunlop 1967). This kingdom flourished between the years 700 c.e. and 1016 c.e. It extended from northern Georgia in the south to Bulgar on the Volga River in the north and from the Aral Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west—an area that falls within a region in which haplogroup R1a1 NRYs are found at high frequency (Rosser et al. 2000). Archival material also records migration of Khazars into the Hungarian Duchy of Taskony in the 10th century. The break-up of the Khazar Empire following their defeat by invading Rus led to the flight of some Khazars to central and northern Europe. Although neither the NRY haplogroup composition of the majority of Ashkenazi Jews nor the microsatellite haplotype composition of the R1a1 haplogroup within Ashkenazi Levites is consistent with a major Khazar or other European origin, as has been speculated by some authors (Baron 1957; Dunlop 1967; Ben-Sasson 1976; Keys 1999), one cannot rule out the important contribution of a single or a few founders among contemporary Ashkenazi Levites.

note 115. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich,

'Jews: A religious group, people or race?,' at the [Jerusalem Post], 26 August, 2012?

'The author uses his observations to refute theories that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of converted Khazars, a semi-nomadic people living in medieval Eurasia who welcomed Jews to their midst.

Ostrer did no such thing. He argued that the Khazars were not a large-scale component of Ashkenazis, as did Atzmon.

The passage quoted from atzmon and co. continues:

Admixture with local populations, including Khazars and Slavs, may have occurred subsequently during the 1000 year (2nd millennium) history of the European Jews. Based on analysis of Y chromosomal polymorphisms, Hammer estimated that the rate might have been as high as 0.5% per generation or 12.5% cumulatively (a figure derived from Motulsky), although this calculation might have underestimated the influx of European Y chromosomes during the initial formation of European Jewry.15 Notably, up to 50% of Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosomal haplogroups (E3b, G, J1, and Q) are of Middle Eastern origin,15 whereas the other prevalent haplogroups (J2, R1a1, R1b) may be representative of the early European admixture.20 The 7.5% prevalence of the R1a1 haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews has been interpreted as a possible marker for Slavic or Khazar admixture because this haplogroup is very common among Ukrainians (where it was thought to have originated), Russians, and Sorbs, as well as among Central Asian populations, although the admixture may have occurred with Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians, rather than Khazars.

That is exactly what Ostrer says in his book (2012 p.94)

Yet, as noted, not all of Ashkenazi Jewish male origins can be related to the migration of Jewish men from the Middle East. After E3b, JI and J2, the most common Ashkenazi Jewish Y-chromosomal types as R1a1 and R1a1. R1a1 is very common among Ukrainians (where it is thought to have originated), Russians and Sorbs (Slavic speakers in Germany), as well as among Central Asian populations. This may, in fact, be the signal of the admixture of Khazars with Ashkenazi Jews, although the admixture may have occurred with Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians.

That's what Tritomex suppresses. And indeed the whole genetics section is patched up on genetic papers that did not use a proxy population to examine the Khazars and Ashkenazi. The argument is carefully laid out, using genetic papers, some of which do not even mention the Khazars, dating from 2000, 2003,2010 etc., to establish that genetics had 'refuted' a theory which, in genetics, was only formulated in 2012 (Elhaik). The editor who did that, by selective quotation and irrelevant sourcing, cleared endeavoured to stack the argument against Elhaik, from which nothing is quoted. It hangs there, hangdog fashion, at the end, like a sigh of stupidity in the face of the 'empirical evidence' of earlier papers which do not analyse the problem he tackled. It's as if Elhaik's theory of 2012, using for the first time a proxy population for Khazars, was preemptively disproven by geneticists a decade earlier who however did no such analysis. Unbelievable POV pushing and WP:OR violations. If anyone wants proof of Tritomex's manipulations, see (a) the Jerusalem article which says Ostrer's book refuted the Khazar theory, and compare it to Ostrer's book. Ostrer's book does not exclude a Khazar component in the Ashkenazi (b) neither does the Atzmon paper because the crucial paragraph I cited, clearly, as in all good science, allows for a Khazar component hypothetically. Personally I think all this stuff is easily manipulated, and at a very primitive level of analysis, and that's one reason it should be handled with caution. But if you guys insist, I think the presentation is best left in the hands of editors who know genetics, have no emotional investment in this theory one way or another, and just like so see sound RS-based WP:NPOV work in wikipedia. Tritomex fails on all counts.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the genetics section is a complete mess and would need a serious overhaul. I admit right away that my own competence in the field is not enough to do it. By the way, Tritomex has not edited the article in a week. I made the last major edit to it, though that edit was only reverting a vandal so it hardly counts.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all I do not remember that I ever edited this article with Jpost. Second Nishidani manipulated here with Ostrrer as he simply downgraded the conclusions made by Ostrrer where he clearly states that "Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs." which clearly means that if hypothetical contribution from European or Khazar people ever happened, it was not large scale. Ostrrer does not think that Jews are race, so therefor it is obvious that genetic contribution from other peoples happened during the time. Ostrrer further cites Hammer conclusions that if hypothetical Khazar contribution ever happened it was limited to less than 12% of current AJ genome (which include Levites). It is clear from this that Nishidani intentions are focused on placing the Khazar theory in this article in a way he did in numerous other articles with unfortunate but clear POV pushing. Nishidani further proved that he is unaware that Khazar theory was investigated by population geneticists (Hammer, Behar, Atzmon and others prior to Elhaik genetic analysis. This studies directly ruled out Khazar theory (Hammer, Behar Atzmon, and others) or indirectly ruled out the Khazar theory by supporting the common genetic origin of geographically dispersed Jewish population (Cambel, Moorijani, Shen and others) Nishidani do not understand that no one denies the possibility of limited genetic admixture of any people including Khazars to AJ genome,as no one denies French contribution to English genome, yet population genetic studies have established that a)all Jewish populations share common origin b) The Khazar theory which states that Ashkenazi Jews are linear descendants of Khazrs is not supported (and it is refuted) by population genetic evidence. --Tritomex (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have said often elsewhere, you don't read what other editors write.

• (a) Geneticists say that 'large scale contribution of Khazars' is ruled out (challenging Koestler 1976), but that Khazars may have contributed in a smaller way. You translate this into:'This (sic) studies directly ruled out Khazar theory'. Neither Ostrer nor the others rule out a Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazim. They specifically in their papers and books say that a Khazar input cannot be dismissed. This is the opposite of your WP:OR POV distortion of their nuanced conclusions.
• (b) In science, a new theory, using the standard disciplinary methodologies, cannot be 'refuted' by adducing research results which preceded its publication. Notwithstanding this, what you have done is to cite related and unrelated papers from a decade before Elhaik's work, in order to insinuate he is wrong. The only thing one can do is, cite Ostrer, Behar, Atzmon's nuanced work as dismissing a 'large-scale input' of Khazar genes (based on no research of proxies or Khazar DNA) while admitting that a smaller scale of genetic influence from the Khazars may explain some elements of an Ashkenazi genetic profile, and then note Elhaik's study. That's how scholarship works. That is how wikipedia works. There is no room here for taking sides.
• You answer by repeating yourself in the face of clear objections to your selective use of sources. A pov-pusher is someone who, over numerous articles, keeps pressing the same point of view, won't listen to, or read relevant reliable sources, and if she does, does so only to find some phrase or wording which confirms a preconceived outlook or opinion. They are almost invariably snippet contributors, tub-thumpers or reverting control freaks. It doesn't fit my profile. I write from top to bottom, where permitted, on the whole body of the article, as I intended doing on Ashkenazi Jews, before you wrecked the article and made working on it impossible.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

More removed paragraphs.

Early Khazar history is intimately linked with that of the Göktürk Empire, founded when the Āshǐnà clan overthrew the Róurán Khaganate in 552. In 515-516 Hunnic. The western portion for-Sabirs attacked Armenia. The widow of the Hunnic-Sabir prince Bolakh Boariks concluded a peace with Byzantium in 527. In 529, Prince Khosrau I of the Persian Empire fought the social movement led by the Zoroastrian priest Mazdak. Numerous Jewish families who supported the movement had to flee the country to north of the Caucasus Mountains. In 552, a western-Turkic khaganate is mentioned, led by Bumin Qaghan (or Tumen) of the Ashina clan. There is speculation that the people of the westernmost portion of the Göktürk Empire became known as Avars. During that time, there is mention of attacks by Sabirs and Khazars on Caucasus Albania.Civil war split the Göktürk empire into eastern and western entities in the late 6th century a tribal confederation including the Bulgars, led by the Dulo clan, under the precursor of the Khazars, the Western Turkic Khaganate, founded in the Caucasus by its first khagan, Tardu of the Ashina clan. The division of the empire fostered separatist tendencies, and soon the Bulgarian tribes under their chieftain Kubrat seceded from the khaganate to form the confederation known as Old Great Bulgaria. In 657, the eastern Göktürk khaganate was overrun by Tang Dynasty general Su Ding Fang, and the central part emerged as the independent khaganate of Khazaria. By 670 the Khazars had broken the Bulgar confederation, causing various tribal groups to migrate, leaving two remnants of Bulgar rule, Volga Bulgaria, under Khazar dominion, and the First Bulgarian Empire, on the Danube River, under Khan Asparukh.

Of this perhaps only Sū Dìngfāng (蘇定方)'s victory and the link to First Bulgarian Empire perhaps are worth retrieving. In any case, the whole passage was unsourced.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Mongolian and Palaeo-Siberian Component

From the Article:

"They appear to stem from Mongolia and South Siberia in the aftermath of the fall of the Hunnic/Xiōngnú nomadic polities. A variegated tribal federation led by these Tűrks, probably comprising a complex assortment of Iranian, Mongolic, Uralic, and Palaeo-Siberian clans, vanquished the Rouran Khaganate of the hegemonic central Asian Avars in 552 and swept westwards, taking in their train other steppe nomads and peoples from the Sogdian kingdom."

Is there any evidence whatsoever that there were Mongolian affinities in the Khazars? Because I recalled that the Mongols were not present in Europe until the 13th Century. The mention of Palaeo-Siberian is also quite dubious due to this refering to Eskimos, Buryats, and other East Siberian ethnic groups which never reached Europe.--Al Khazar 00:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

Good point. I added proto- to Mongolic, i.e., 'proto-Mongolic'. If the wiki article on Palaeo-Siberians is badly written don't trust it. The only place editors should check and verify is in academic sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What is to be done

Proposal

This page is a mess -- that much appears uncontroversial -- and needs a major reorganization. Here are the broad steps I propose:

• Intro - The intro section is too long and contains detail that should be moved into the body.
• Organization - The body is a mish-mash. Broadly, the historical material should be consolidated at the top, then the governmental/religion/cultural material, then the sources discussion.
• Debate about conversion to Judaism - This should be moved to its own page, with a brief summary and link here.
• Images - Too many, unwieldy in size and placement, text often choked into newspaper column width. These should be re-placed to correspond to accompanying text or spread to relieve clutter.

Mostly I am proposing to move stuff around into a more logical presentation, without changing substance. Some of the non sequitors will require discussion whether they should be kept and where. Obviously with the block on the page, this cannot begin right away, but I will raise the first issue for discussion:

• Issue 1: The "Chronicle of Events" image runs on for four screens (on a large monitor), yet the text is so small, I had to get out a magnifying glass to read it (the full image is no help -- it has to be downloaded to zoom it large enough to actually read). With the images along the other side of the page, the text is choked out. The detail is interesting, but it takes up so much room without being readable and crowds other, more useful images. I believe it should be removed.

Discuss. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to the reorganization that Laszlo Panaflex proposed, and which is definitely needed, I would propose the following:

• Intro Most of what is now in the intro belongs in history. I'd propose we limit the intro to three relatively short paragraphs. First a general paragraph (who where the Khazars, establishing the that they were a Turkic people), then the main historical facts (the facts about their state), and then a paragraph about the Jewish connection (the only reason the Khazars are known today, and probably the reason for 98% of all visits to this article).
  
• Organization I pretty much agree with what was said. The part about origins is excessive. Let's keep all the theories but shorten them substantially. Then the history part, where most of the introduction should go. Though the history part could be shortened quite a bit as well.
• Judaism . Here I find the article going very POV. It takes every opportunity to discredit the theory that there could be a connection between the Khazars and the Ashkenazim. A reader of this article will come away with the perception that only anti-semites believe in the Khazar theory and that it has no scientific support. That's not entirely incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, some anti-semites propose this theory. It's also true that there is hardly any scientific support for the claim that the Ashkenazim are all Khazars. On the other hand, several respected scientists have suggested a partial connection, where modern Ashkenazim are descendants of a mix of both "semitic" Jews and "Khazar" Jews. I am not saying we should state that as a fact, but nor should we discredit it as it's a theory proposed by established researchers in both genetics, history and linguistics.Jeppiz (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

[Comment moved above] Meanwhile, the discussion of the Judaism issue within those comments underscores the need for that topic to have its own page, rather than being dealt with on the general topic page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Method

Thanks User:Laszlo Panaflex. I think it's broadly recognized the page is a mess, and your intervention to discuss its reorganization is timely. Could we agree to get some order into this. Laszlo raised 4 points. I think the best way forward is to create a 'discuss' section (or by mere indentation) after each of them. Practically, .Jeppiz's responses should, if (s)he doesn't mind, be shifted back, each to the relevant section in Laszlo's initial lay-out. Or no? Otherwise we will break the flow of each distinct proposition, and make it difficult to follow each thread. I would only add that a fork for a Khazar-Judaism page should carry to bulk of what we have here, but the conversion to Judaism has played a significant part of historical work on the Khazars, so it must retain a thorough, if succinct, summation of those arguments. I'll withhold comments until we can get some agreement on the most efficient way of examining all of the points, and others if fresh additional suggestions come up, in an orderly way. Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My plan would be to initially reorder the sections along the lines set forth above; I will then begin tinkering with the images. I will appreciate help revising the intro and distributing the detail into appropriate areas of the body. It would be best if someone who is more familiar with the material accomplish any move or revision of the Judaism discussion; I will leave that for others. A separate area of the Talk page may be necessary to address that issue. Hopefully the other areas will not require much discussion as they will be primarily organization and aesthetic improvement. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We should consider adopting a unified reference system or template. I've done this on several articles (Shakespeare Authorship Question, Charles Dickens, Hebron, Tomb of Joseph, etc) but my preference has struck others as ungainly. But, aesthetically we do need an internally consistent format.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Chronicle of Events Issue

(copied from above): "The "Chronicle of Events" image runs on for four screens (on a large monitor), yet the text is so small, I had to get out a magnifying glass to read it (the full image is no help -- it has to be downloaded to zoom it large enough to actually read). With the images along the other side of the page, the text is choked out. The detail is interesting, but it takes up so much room without being readable and crowds other, more useful images. I believe it should be removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)"

I second its removal. Since it is illegible as it stands it only upsets the text. If someone could copy, and enlarge the content and put it on the work page here for reference, it could help us write the history of the key events, however. But it certainly has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Section Reorganization, Images

Here is a first cut at reordering the sections [2], as discussed above. I've simply reorganized and consolidated topics at this point, with no change in substance (or to the Intro). I removed the Chronicle image and will begin re-placing other images later. Getting a more logical structure in place will make blending the detail from the Intro into the body easier, and provide guidance on image placement. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This version resets the images into more appropriate places and sizes. I have taken two maps out because they are redundant and don't fit well anywhere ([3], [4]). When text from the Intro is blended into the body, that will change the spacing, and I will revisit the formatting, and perhaps add these images back in as space permits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I suggest we adopt Laszlo's reorganization. It is certainly a considerable visual improvement. Can we all "vote" on this, rather than dragging our feet? Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hunnic empire map is useful, I think, but the formatting will not allow images above the last "History of" infobox, unless there is a trick I don't know. So the map cannot be lined up with the appropriate text, and trimming keeps pushing it down into inapt placing and creating a cluttered appearance. So I'm removing it. As Jeppiz noted, the Hun info is tangential anyway. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to reiterate that the infoboxes limit the formatting possible for images, which cannot be placed above the start of the last box. Images then cannot go near the text they augment and end up bunched together in a cluttered mess. I took two more out to make room for the new box that was added. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tags

The "too many images" tag can now be removed, I believe. Also the tag regarding splitting the article seems to be directed primarily as a remedy for the disorganization of the page. Splitting the Khaganate info out of the page would be illogical, though, and leave two incomplete pages. The better solution is to improve this page, which we are working on, so I propose that tag be removed as well. The intro tag can stay until that situation is resolved. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should have a free hand to reorganize the structure of the page, and, unless a specific objection or two is raised, just jump in medias res and do what you proposed. We only have problems with (a) the fact that the content is a mish-mash, and can be edited and rewritten rapidly without objections (I intend to remove all sources that are not accessible, obscure or fail RS, replacing them with the standard history sources) (b) the Khazar-Ashkenazi section is the only thing where objections might lead to edit-warring. For that reason I have preemptively attempted to resolve that issue by offering the draft at the bottom (to date) of this talk page. It tends to give weight to scepticism, but that just mirrors the state of the academic play. It notes three respectable scholars who dissent, without entering into the merits. The merits of the argument can be thrashed out by anyone who wishes to create a fork where that argument might be gone into in detail. So, unless I am mistaken in my reading of the flow, you should go ahead and just adjust the organization according to your lights. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I removed a couple tags and it already messed up my image formatting. So I'll wait until the Intro is revised, then remove tags and tinker with the images some more. *sigh* Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The tag "suggesting" the page be split is back, with no discussion, and with no suggestion how that may be accomplished. The user demands to know why the tag was removed, ignoring the actual discussion of the issue. So easy to slap a tag on it, call it crappy, and move on, leaving the responsibility to fulfill your suggestion on others. (Sorry, just venting. But this is how the page got so out of control to begin with.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Judaism debate

(copied from above): "* Judaism . Here I find the article going very POV. It takes every opportunity to discredit the theory that there could be a connection between the Khazars and the Ashkenazim. A reader of this article will come away with the perception that only anti-semites believe in the Khazar theory and that it has no scientific support. That's not entirely incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, some anti-semites propose this theory. It's also true that there is hardly any scientific support for the claim that the Ashkenazim are all Khazars. On the other hand, several respected scientists have suggested a partial connection, where modern Ashkenazim are descendants of a mix of both "semitic" Jews and "Khazar" Jews. I am not saying we should state that as a fact, but nor should we discredit it as it's a theory proposed by established researchers in both genetics, history and linguistics.Jeppiz (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)"

Yes, the claim that anyone suggesting a Khazar-Ashkenazim connection is an antisemite is the worst aspect of this article and must be expunged. Zero^talk 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any possibility to make this kind of changes through consensus. This changes can not promote a fringe theory, which has no support among all relevant academic historians, and to present them in way that they allude that there are artificial dispute between historians about this subject. The fact that one of the greatest living historian Bernard Lewis described this theory as lacking any evidence and being mostly used for political purposes and by Antisemities is a fact. This is a view of Bernard Lewis and not a POV of any editor. --Tritomex (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but there are several long-term experienced editors who regard the page as a mess, and who are willing to collaborate actively in devising collaboratively remedies to make this into a decent, comprehensive yet succinctly fashioned page. No one here has a Khazar-Ashkenazi fixation. I am completely agnostic on the issue, and only admit, with regard to this specifi issue, to a life-long professional interest in how a major hermeneutic paradigm handles marginal evidence that makes some of its comfortable self-assurance look scraggy. WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity. Drop the antisemitic nonsense. It only means insinuating that a notable number of scholars suffer from self-hatred, which, like the other term, is best left to the Plauts and spin-doctors of the world, and should be kept out of the workplace, which wikipedia is.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the case of my personal point of view, there is a highly respected scholar, presenting his crystal clear view on the subject which this article covers.--Tritomex (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A personal view can quite easily be put over by selectively citing as authoritative the view of one scholar (very old, Bernard Lewis, Moshe Gil) as though it represented a consensus, while ignoring the complexity of scholarship in the whole field. This is what you are repeatedly doing. Desist.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Having worked with the page more now, I no longer think this section needs to be split into its own article. With it now following Religions, this section fits in logically and coherently. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Historically, a very large percentage of Ashkenazim hail from the Pontic Steppe region, from Poland, and from regions of Czarist Russia and the former USSR, from which they fled persecution and war into modernity - that much is fact, and all sections of the article fail to address that. Likewise, this section fails to address the television shows and documentaries made and shown within Israel, associating Ashkenazim with Khazaria / Khazar heritage. (We need look no further than the 'Kagans' for that.) Furthermore, the article neglects to mention that a significant percentage of Ashkenazim are apparently proud of their Pontic Steppe heritage, by the foregoing estimation.

To their discredit, the authors or author presumes to know what is in the mind of others by using his or her own conjecture to frame this debate, ie that the proponents of any Khazar-Ashkenazim connection are "anti-zionists" and "anti-semites", immediately presumed to be the author's own interpretation of the usage, that is, to the exclusion of all semetic peoples, including Arabs. The author's conjecture is based upon this statement in the article: "Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historic[al] claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists." The presence of such expansionary political nonsense cloaked in theistic rhetoric destroys the presumed objectivity of any wiki article. To further state in the article that radical groups use the association of Khazar to Ashkenazim to discredit such a ridiculous "Holy Land Grant" land claim to justify Zionist's appropriation of the 'Land of Canaan' has no place in an article about ancient history.

As an historic reference work on the Khazar Empire, the politically-motivated belief of "Jewish religious/Christian Zionists" and the term "Jewish Religious Zionist" is in itself exclusionary and prejudicial and proscribes an ideology, not a religion. It is an ideology where the association with religious belief is inferred by the author and is not a matter of fact. [NB: By such standards it should be mentioned that Kahanists and the JDL etc used and use "God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites" to commit atrocities, which can be factually listed here if so requested, and would at least balance the overt attempt to manipulate the history of an important historic entity.]

Mixing current political ideological belief (ie the relation of Judaism to Zionism which purports to be a "religion" as cited by Zionists only and not by Judaism) and applying such ideological beliefs to a historical treatise on a civilization which was historically transformed almost one millennium ago is a very, very bad idea; it's a modern ideological abomination which real historians assiduously avoid when attempting to objectively describe ancient history.

In other words, this section of the article is a blatant revisionist interpretation of the history of Khazaria, and such a biased revisionist history does not belong on the wiki. This section should be removed to sourcewatch or some other forum where the reader may interpret the underlying political motivation(s) of the author(s) and see this section of the article for what it is, namely pro-Zionist propaganda; which has little or nothing to do with the foundation and migration of an important historic people and Empire in antiquity.

Changes to origins and prehistory

I did the following changes to the section Origins and prehistory

• Replaced a sentence that used unencyclopedic language with a more neutral one.
• Shortened the section on Hunnish origins quite a bit. There are articles on the Hunnish tribes, what is relevant in this article is only the possible Khazar connection, not general information about other Hunnic tribes.
• Moved a paragaph that previously was found under the Hunnish heading to its own heading, as it did not seem to have anything to do with the Hunnish theory.Jeppiz (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Arab-Khazar Wars section

I added some detail to this area (perhaps too much, parse as you see fit). There were a couple of sources that I did not move over because they are not listed in the References here, and I did not want to mess up the hard and tedious work that people have been doing on that area. The sources are mostly on the primary page for the A-K Wars and include Golden 2006, Barthold & Golden, and Blankinship. I'm not versed in the various source templates and such, and I didn't want to add more problems by moving the sources incorrectly. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Content is everything. We all chip in where we feel confident, and I'm pretty sure there are enough eyes here to check and adjust. Avi, for one, has just cleaned up my technical incontinence, and I think I can fix the templates in this section.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

a sourced comment in a genetics article

I am not sure what to make of this but on a new genetics article about Bulgaria Karachanak, Sena; Grugni, Viola; Fornarino, Simona; Nesheva, Desislava (2013), "Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry", PLOS One, the following is stated:

One of the most important discoveries about Bulgarian history was recently published [10], [13], [19]. It shows that an entire array of previously unknown sources written in four languages - Old Bulgarian, Greek, Old German and Hebrew-Khazar - unanimously describe proto-Bulgarians as a quite numerous people [20].

The references (10, 13, 19, 20) are:-

• 10. Dobrev PD (2005) The golden core of the Bulgarian antiquity. Sofia: Tangra TanNakRa IK.
• 13. Dimitrov B (2005) Twelve myths in Bulgarian history. Sofia: KOM Foundation, 38–65.
• 19. Daskalov R (2011) The Amazing world of the proto-Bulgarians. Sofia: Gutenberg Edit. House.
• 20. Chrestomathy of Bulgarian history, vol I, Petrov P, Gjuzelev V, editors (1979). Sofia: Bulgarian Writer Edit. House, 88–125

So what are Hebrew-Khazar sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Try ask at WP:RX--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the article I have my doubts on the value of this. They also act as if it is proven that Bulgars spoke an Iranian language, which I think is a fringe position. I think that this is another case where geneticists show themselves as not being ideal for their history. But in any case there is a trail here that can be followed if anyone is interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Late references to the Khazars

The whole section remains unsourced for years and full of dubious claims which are not in line with reliable historic sources. I propose to remove the entire section at least until it was edited properly.--Tritomex (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Origins & Language and Language

As most of you know, there are two sections which are quite similiar. One of them, being Languages, is not even sourced. What is to be done about this? Al Khazar 06:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

The Ashkenazim section is absurd

The section about the connection between Ashkenazim and the Khazars is absurd because it is mostly devoted to debunking the connection. By connecting the idea strictly with British Israelism and other right-wing ideas, this page dismisses the entire idea. Not everyone agrees on this of course, but this NPOV should be removed or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.216 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The last study done, the once referenced (December 2012, Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Elhaik ), should be expanded, instead of all this defamatory stuff that serves only to try and discredit an idea that science offers plenty of source material for.MickeyDonald (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is one of the sections of this article not a bit offensive?

If we look at this section, isn't it basically associating everyone who still believes in a specific theory with being anti Zionist or anti Semitic? I am by no means wanting to argue for the Khazar theory but isn't this clearly wrong, and hence quite potentially offensive and misleading?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

About the recent edit war, I agree with what Andrew Lancaster wrote earlier this month. I do not want to argue for the Khazar theory, as I don't believe in it, but the section that MVictorP has been removing is clearly POV and not encyclopedic for the reasons Andrew Lancaster give above. The main aim of the section seems to be to 'discredit by default' anyone believing in the Khazar-theory by saying that they are anti-semites. That is a very strong claim, and not justified based on my reading of the (poorly written) section. I do not believe in the Khazar-theory, but the way to present that is to present the scientific findings in a dispassionate way, not resorting to blaming anyone who doesn't agree of being an anti-semite.Jeppiz (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The theory has an interesting history, that simply can't be swept under the rug by an obsessive worry about political 'fall-out'. Unfortunately this is one of a large number of articles where sensitivities to politics are more acute than curiosity about the historical geneaology and scholarship on, a theory. I don't think we should 'believe' anything, at least in terms of scholarship. There are fringe ideas, and there are scholarly controversies: the former are boring, the latter fascinating. All we get really are adjustments of perspective, an informed scepticism about the pitfalls of self-assurance, and, incrementally, a little knowledge of what are the less improbable lines of interpretation given the available facts. There's not enough evidence here to be dismissive either way. There is a considerable amount of argument that serious scholars still regard the idea as a valid object of investigation, and transcribing these arguments should not entail hysteria about implications. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Overreliance on Lewis

I see that a section based on Lewis is being added and removed by various editors. To me, the section looks like WP:UNDUE emphasis on Lewis. Please discuss why or why not Lewis deserves to be a lone voice of mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Huge sections (the Jewish-related one in particular) of the article still carry known conotation techniques, and its structure is a mess. The edit you made was a minimum, and maybe, the start of something bigger.MVictorP (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

While I am not defending the substance of the section removed, the proper protocol would have been to have this discussion *before* removing the material. Go back into the archives and you will see that the "litigated" area has been contested to the point of the page being blocked at times. At least the page had become stable before this new dust up. I suggest a proposal be made on how to deal with this area, *then* removing or changing the text. Otherwise you will be fighting this edit war daily. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not the edit warring which is occurring here. The material should be discussed before any more efforts at insertion. The burden is on the editor who wishes to include text, not the editor who removes text. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The text was already included after discussion. It was removed without discussion, then this new round of warring began. It would be far more constructive if a proposal to deal with the contested language is discussed -- as was done with the reorganization of the history section and intro a few months ago. Otherwise prepare to be re-doing these reversions repeatedly because that has been the history of the section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposition About the "Ashkenazi-Khazar" Hypothesis

This is a rough I propose in place of the section I removed, which was "Theories Linking Jews to Khazars Today". If no one actually does it, I might attempt to do it myself but I am a newb still.

First, title the replacement section something like "Debate on Khazarian Links to Ashkenazi Jews". Paste the old section's sourced "Rhineland Hypothesis" (if nobody objects the newish term), and balance it with a new "Khazarian hypothesis" held, noticably, by modern researchers like Eran Elhaik and Kevin Brooks. This section should be ideally close to the one about "Date and Extent of the Conversion". References and accusation to interested parties supporting/fighting one of the theories (zionists, antisemites etc) should be kept to a minimum.

Ideally, there should then be a link to another WP article about the debate, which would diminish the main article in size and somehow allevate it. I would be eager to know what the opposants to the deletion would think regarding this - Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a debate article would be a good addition to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I left this article a third way through my review of the page because of unremitting edit-warring and tediously obstructive discussion, and I see it has returned. I checked just one source cited on the page, under anti-semitism, and found that the text pasted in only material apposite to the POV that the Khazar hypothesis is historically regarded as antisemitic. The actual source unambiguously states the opposite. After the correction, Tritomex, as is his habit, immediately reverted the correction, evidently without controlling the source (one by the way that he has never challenged). The insistance by some editors that wikipedia should condemn the hypothesis as antisemitic violates NPOV. It's easy to fix: the academic literature on this is extensive: the hypothesis was entertained by notable Israeli scholars: Bernard Lewis, as I have often noted, was not abreast of the latest research, and his facile obiter dictum from the earlier 80s is given undue weight. Until the erratic abuse of editing privileges stops, it will be rather a waste of time to do that section. I expect it will be written only after some of evidence for mindless reverting is compiled for an A/I report.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think WP needs debate articles? Anyway I think all the comments about over-reliance on Lewis are clearly correct. WP should not be saying that everyone who believes this theory is anti-semitic. To me that is verging on a BLP problem, because it is clearly a very strong accusation about identifiable living people, some of whom are Jewish, but in any case it is certainly an NPOV problem. And we need not be trying to frame this discussion in terms of all Lewis or no Lewis! NPOV is clear: we do not need to write a new debate (that would be original work). We just need to summarise the two sides of debate which exist in publications. If everyone would just allow that...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge literature regarding association of Khazar theory promoters and Antisemitism from highly respected academic sources. If it would be only Bernard Lewis, it would be enough but he is not the only one.This view is also held by ADL and numerous Jewish and Israeli organizations and academic historians like Moshe Gil, Ben Sasson etc. It is well known that Khazar Theory has been promoted by different Antisemitc and racist organizations and that is widely used in context of Arab-Israeli conflict to deny the rights of Jewish people to Israel. Still I did not find any material denying this, nor I have seen any material claiming that Khazar Theory is not associated with this phenomenon too. This does not mean that there are no people outside Antisemitic spectrum who are believing in Khazar Theory, nor did the text claimed that. It just pointed out to clear connection and popularity of this idea (which is btw rejected by almost all mainstream historians, contrary to the picture artificially created here in this article) among specific ideological groups--Tritomex (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Quote discussed bellow:

"The Khazar theory still enjoys some popularity, but it has been accused of mainly being associated with anti-Zionists and antisemites. Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. Prominent historian Bernard Lewis, has stated: This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.</blockquote"Btw Bernard Lewis was never an "Israeli" scholar but is considered one of the most important British and global oriental historian who enjoys enormous respect in Arab and Islamic world too. What changes you propose?--Tritomex (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Theories aren't 'accused', people are.
• Lewis and Harkabi were writing 30 years ago, by the way (Well actually Harkabi's essay came out in Hebrew in the late 1960s ('Arab Antisemitism' in Shmuel Ettinger, Continuity and Discontinuity in Antisemitism, (Hebrew) 1968 p.50), and was basically using that example to argue that the Arab world had become the centre of antisemitism. Note the date just after the Six Day War)
• Lewis is a "prominent" scholar, as Jimmy Carter is a "prominent" politician.
• There is no doubt that the Khazar theory has had support from anti-Zionists. What's missing is that it enjoyed strong support from Zionists too.

The whole thing is just clumsy. What we should be doing is writing the history of the idea, its ups and downs in scholarship over the decades, and leave the 'political readings' to a later moment, once the general outline of the theory's actual development is clarified. Start with a political anxiety, and we'll get nowhere. I suggest we can work this out directly on this page, before editing anything in.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis, as educated as he is, is a known zionist, therefore an interested party in the debate - and he didn't gave much against the Khazarian Hypothesis beside well-felt disdain. I am not saying we should rule him out as a credible source for that, but I insist he must be counterbalanced (ideally by Elhaik) in the remade section. Lewis alone just won't do.MVictorP (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But now after thinking about it, I would rather oppose to Elhaik's findings the Ashkenazi DNA tests, rather than Lewis' pontificating rebuttal. More rational. MVictorP (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The using of term "Zionist" for Bernard Lewis is laughable. He is one of greatest scholar of Islam and Middle East and he was never engaged in any political party, while he made more on building bridges between Islamic world and West than anyone (from his field). If Zionism means the acceptance of Israeli existence than the whole world beyond Islamic countries are Zionist and every single scholar on this line should be excluded.

What is obvious, is however that I heard the same argument from all 4 sockpuppets (of historic lover, I forgot the name of his other accounts) caught on this page aimed to bring the same changes during the years. Concerning Nishadani views: Politicians can be prominent, however prominent historian means well educated, objective, reliable and widely cited. Bernard Lewis is considered to be one of the most cited academic historian. I agree with the rephrasing of term "accused of" and I propose the term "associated with" Whatever is missing, can be added through reliable sources. --Tritomex (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't give much attention to the conspiracy theory you are putting forth to explain edits - I'd rather attribute them on common sense and objectivity. Second, Lewis is polemical, to say the least. I don't believe he achieves the unshakeable credibility you attribute him, and he has proven able to be (very) wrong, due to his political choices (because he has a political career as well). Finally, Lewis' contribution to the Rhineland/Khazarian Hypothesises is dated, minimal and POV. What about my suggestion that you write the deleted section's counterpart? MVictorP (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please let's avoid distractions. This talkpage has seen enough of that. It does not matter what we think of Lewis. WP is clear he is an RS, but equally clear that we should not rely on one source when there are differences of opinion between sources (WP:NPOV). WP is also very clear that we should not make controversial statements about living people in the name of WP. Lewis' opinion about some things is more notable than about other things. His opinion about everyone who agrees with this theory being anti-Semitic is not something we need to be supporting because it is an extreme opinion. Policy is basically telling us the solutions to all these "dilemmas" and all we need to do is follow it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

From a Rhineland Hypothesis' supporter point of view, I'd be better served opposing to Elhaik research the DNA researches done on Ashkenazis rather than what appears to be Lewis' personal feelings. What about you, Tritomex? MVictorP (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The question of how much emphasis we should give to genetic studies in this particular article is one that has been discussed at length here, and it is in my mind separate from the most urgent points needing consideration in the above discussion. But I would say that I think it would be inappropriate for this article to rely on genetic studies only, for either position. And secondly, if we use genetic studies for one side of the argument we should also cite any genetic studies which take a different position, and there are several different genetic studies that make remarks on this matter. So it could get messy if we try to go into too much detail that is already handled in other WP articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, hard to neny, the whole article is something of a mess, with redundency and contradictions. If we are to talk about genetics, the subject should be in one sole section, named as such, and where all other significant reference in the articles would be displaced, or dropped if redundant. On the debate itself, as of yet I don't see no other page where it could be linked, this is looking quite like the place I would put it in. However, I would not extent the genetic debate to a zionist/antizionist one, as there are many, many other pages where it is waged, that could links to this one. MVictorP (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Elahik has been debated here and in other places numerous times and I do not wish to return to those debate. Elahik btw considered Georgians and Armenians "Proto-Khazars" meaning original Khazars (which is not mentioned here) Beyond Elhaik, there are 23 other genetic studies which came to opposite conclusion than Elhaik. While Elhaik analysis used innovative techniques and samples from another studies, there are studies like Atzmon and all, which used samples from thousands of people and tens of thousands of loci and which were published by the National Academy of Science. However, here we are not speaking about genetics, we are speaking about history, to be precise we are speaking about a quote from famous historian which has no policy based argument to be banned from this page. Your personal description of Bernard Lewis "feelings" is unacceptable from academic point of view. He is not speaking about himself or his feelings but about a historic phenomenon to which he is considered to be an expert.---Tritomex (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to make original research about "feelings" of different academic experts, nor to criticize them or to like/dislike them. They are the experts and our personal views about them are restricted to establishing wetter they are reliable or not. If Bernard Lewis is reliable, by the WP:NPOV his views on this subject can not be censored. If there are other experts, claiming the opposite, again by WP:NPOV, they should be mentioned too.--Tritomex (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as educated and renowned as he might be, Lewis's opinion is quite thin in substance. It's looking more like a random remark than a devoted study on the matter from his part. Lewis should have no more than a mention as either an opponent of the Khazarian Hypothesis or a supporter of the Rhineland Hypothesis. Solely because he is well-known.

Now, Elhaik's findings are no more nor less polemic than all other serious studies on the matter (including the Ashkenazi DNA methodology, denounced in Elhaik's works). These works are discussed, that's how things evolve. Our work, as WP editor, is to represent this evolution of the debate, not judge the parties implied. Conclusions are not for us to write.MVictorP (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You must understand that this is not place for genetic studies debate. I am very much familiar with population genetics, yet I do not want to drag myself into something irrelevant to this question. The existence of Khazarian hypothesis in scientific circles is highly questionable as all historians beyond one (same with geneticists) do not agree that this hypothesis has any historic validation. I red recently a very good article from historian Moshe Gil on this subjct[[5]] Based on what proof you qualify Levis writings as "random remarks" ? Everything written or said by scholars with enormous reputation can be downgraded to "remarks", but this is not how WP works.Its not upon us, editors, to downgrade or judge their work. Even if this would be a remark, that does not disqualify it as per WP policy from being mentioned in this article, nor there is policy based argument to censor it.--Tritomex (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased proposal:

The Khazar theory still enjoys some popularity, but it has been associated also with anti-Zionists and antisemites. Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. Regarding Khazar theory, Bernard Lewis, has stated:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.

If there are no policy based arguments against this proposal I will add this form tomorrow, If there are proposals for specific changes, I am ready to listen.--Tritomex (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal, for the following reasons: - Still accusations of antisemitism and the such are present, long after they've been debunked as subjective and noxious to an honest debate. If the article was about anti-semitism, I wouldn't mind reading that many antisemites have espoused Khazarian Hypothesises, but in this article it is frivolous, and even offensive. If I were a reasearcher who'd disagree with you, I wouldn't like to see you associate me with hatred groups whith whom I had no contact. - A counterbalanced opinion is still lacking. - The quoted text express opinions of biaised authors rather than the tangible results of specific research work or document. If we are to endure these, they should be quoted after a given hypothesis is explained (as supporters or detractors), and then given balance by an opposed opinion. There are many more than you are willing to admit (Oxford's Elhaik's peers, Ernst Mayr, Jerry Coyne, Shlomo Sand, Danielle Venton etc.MVictorP (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What Ernst Mayr,Jerry Coyne or Danielle Venton have to do with Antisemitism or Khazars? The current form do not associate all who believes in Khazar theory with Antisemitism but points out to the reasons why some Antizionists and Antisemities promotes this theory. You did not show any material, document or policy based argument that Lewis is biased and your continues labeling of him is something which is incorrect if not against WP rules.Btw all mainstream historians are on same position like him.

If you do not come out with references and policy based argument you will not be able based on WP:IDONTHEAR IT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR to censor a reliable source which btw explains something that is well known to all of us and has high importance in this subject. I will wait for additional day in order to hear suggestions from others. I am open to all constructive suggestions.--Tritomex (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just tell me why we should care about zionism or any political bent on a page that we all want scientific and neutral. I don't see what a zionist/anti-zionist debate does here (and even less a one-sided one), as these political opinions are always in the way of facts, as you demonstrated. Reposition you zionist/anti-zionist axis for a Rhineland/Khazarian one.

P.S.: Danielle Venton did a paper on Elhaik's finding, and would be acceptable as a second source over Elhaik's work, as suggested by WP guidelines.MVictorP (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we cut the chat, and sketch what the section needs? Look, the problem isn't with putting in Bernard Lewis's statement, made in the mid 80s. As I have informed you several times, Khazar studies have made great strides since then, and Lewis is not an authority on them. Since he wrote, scholars like Paul Wexler in linguistics, and Eran Elhaik in genetics, have revived it in a variety of forms. Shlomo Sand has written a history, partisan but still highly informative, of the vicissutdes of the theory in Jewish, and Israeli historiography. (Bruno Kreisky was not a scholar: but as an Austrian, like the Hungarian Arthur Koestler, he was in a position to read the Zeitgeist and antisemitism, and when both espoused the idea of the Khazar-Ashkenazi link, they didn't think they were encouraging antisemites. The other three scholars are all Israelis, all Jewish, and have no problem with working on the hypothesis either. This is two decades after Lewis's statement. To, as you are endeavouring here, push Lewis as the last word on the subject is POV-pushing, selective use of sources, a violation of WP:Undue and many other things. I have already entered the datum (which you tried immediately to revert, that it has a very minor role historically in antisemitism. It should be noted that Eric L. Goldstein,The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, Princeton University Press ‎2006 p.131 says the theory was brought to America by Maurice Fishberg in 1911, and there, as our sources note, it was taken up by the usual lunatic antisemitic fringe. It is accepted that Lewis passes muster for the cute little quote, but the section in which it will be placed shall deal predominantly with the history of the hypothesis, its development in Israel and elsewhere, the fact that East European Jewish scholars like Schipper who argued for the theory were attacked by antisemitic Poles and Russians for the presumption of being an ancient people in their land; the reception of Koestler's work (who advanced the hypothesis to cut the ground from antisemitism); its recent revival in linguistics, historiography, and genetics. And it will be noted that it also has had a certain vogue among antisemites (and Zionists). Your stub doesn't pass muster. Stormfront and other lunatic outlets are not taken seriously: Ernest Renan,the Russian-Jewish anthropologist Samuel Weissenberg, H. Kuschera, Yitzhak Schipper (who used Khazaria as a model for a future Zionist state), Abraham N. Poliak, Raphael Patai, Koestler, Wexler, Sand, Elhaik and several others have to be, even if it is a minority opinion. All this has to be cut back to a paragraph, or two brief paragraphs, the Lewis quote needs to be précised in a paraphrase and the text can go into a note. No one in it should be judged or boosted or deplored.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can insure you that Samuel Weissenberg (race researcher), Abraham Poliak to whom I am very much familiar never advocated the so called Khazar theory. Even before I saw Elhaik references to Poliak, I carefully red his books and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material. I am almost also sure that the same goes for Patai, concerning Yitzhak Schipper I never heard anything about a person with such name. The conversion of Khazar nobility, which is today accepted by many historians do not equals and has nothing in common with this theory itself. Undoubtedly as Moshe Gil explains the Khazarian Jewish State fiction was part of Jewish mythology, mostly existing as substitution for the lack of Jewish sovereignty during centuries.

However Nishadani, to avoid endless discussion on this topic I suggest you to come out with concrete proposal regarding the removed sections we have discussed. Please give us your proposal or correct mine.--Tritomex (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even before I saw Elhaik references to Poliak, (a) I carefully red his books' and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material. I am almost also sure that the same goes for Patai, concerning Yitzhak Schipper I never heard anything about a person with such name.

• Which books of Poliak did you read? You've never read Patai. You haven't heard of Schipper?Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani, . I have red many books from Patai, mostly unrelated to this subject, although I red " The myth of Jewish race". Concerning Poliak I have the "The Khazars" and "The Khazar conversion to Judaism", thanks to my friends from Hebrew university of Jerusalem which sent me together with dozens of other books this translated copy.

Returning to the subject of discussion. Currently I red Israel Bartal and Anita Shapira on the same subject and I have found many interesting quotes which are missed from this article. The same goes for Moshe Gil I will restore the valid and well sourced quote adding exact date. I have nothing against adding other sourced material as I myself have a plenty of material from Shapira, Bartal and Gil without having time to edit it.--Tritomex (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Which Hebrew edition of Poliak's book did you read? The 1944 or the 1951? It's important because you are asserting that there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material, so before I correct you I wish to be absolutely clear we are referring to the same object. (Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not speak Hebrew (although I started to learn Hebrew and Arabic), I revived from HUJ, his translated books typed on a typewriter, together with 20 books related to this (and other) issues.. I don't know exactly when it was published as they are not original books.I can send you a copy through post mail if you are interested.--Tritomex (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To be precise and not to mix terminology when I speak about Khazar theory, I SOLELY speak about the believe that modern Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of medieval Khazars. This does not cover any issue related to conversions of Khazars, which can be found in Poliak, Dunlop, Barthal or Ben Sasson...--Tritomex (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear. You asserted that (a) 'Abraham Poliak (to whom I am very much familiar) never advocated the so called Khazar theory.(b)I carefully red his books and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ'

I asked you for sources and page numbers, because Poliak's work is untranslated. You tell me (a) that friends in Israel sent you his books (b) that you cannot read them (c) that HUJ sent you his translated books, (which if they exist are not in the public domain and not RS.)

Poliak's conclusion 'asserted categorically that the great bulk of Eastern European Jewry originated in the territories of the Khazar empire.' .(Sand(2009) 2010:234):'Poliak sought the origins of Eastern European Jewry in Khazaria'.(Golden 2006a:p.29)

So the conclusion must be that everything you asserted above is sheer bluff, to put it nicely. A more courteous person would lament that you are lying through your teeth.

Your latest edit, which showcases what is an extreme minority opinion by Moshe Gil, written when he was 90 years old for a journal of dubious scholarly worth (nearly all experts in Khazarian studies accept that conversion took place) and that flies in the face of contemporary scholarship, follows the assertion:'Undoubtedly as Moshe Gil explains the Khazarian Jewish State fiction was part of Jewish mythology, mostly existing as substitution for the lack of Jewish sovereignty during centuries.'

What is disturbing here is that you are (a) asserting knowledge of books you have not read, (b) making conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of competent scholars who have read them (c)introducing Moshe Gil for challenging the conversion, to WP:POINT make a point about the Ashkenazi-Khazar thesis (d) explicitly taking sides by espousing the truth of one fringe opinion, and dismissing scholarly consensus as a fiction about a fiction. All this shows utter indifference if not contempt for collegial editing and assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to prove anything about myself personally, I have offered you a copy of Poliak book, which I have and which is indeed unusable for direct Wikipedia edition as it is not available online.What I also wanted to point out with this offer, is that contrary to myself you never red Poliak, but you relay on secondary and Tertiary claims about his books. Concerning Moshe Gil, personally I do not agree with his views, however he is a well known academic expert from this field, his work did not created any criticism and his views are not less fringe than the Khazarian Theory itself (btw Israel Bartal and Anita Shapira, the two leading contemporary Jewish historians, whose texts about Khazars I also have, are very close in their opinion with Gil. Also, he is considered to be one of the most prominent experts regarding Arab historians, from whom almost all our knowledge regarding Khazars derive. If there is criticism of Gil work, to which I am unfamiliar, I have nothing against adding that criticism by WP:NPOV in parallel with my edits.

To summarize if anyone is interested in my personal opinion, based on material I have red I believe that some form of Judaism adoption/conversion was present among Khazar royalty. What is disturbing here is that the fact that what all non partisan and neutral historians stated from Dunlop to Bernard Lewis claims, namely that Khazar theory is not historically validated theory is somehow omitted from this article. To elaborate how old which author was, whether they rote their books before or after Elhaik home made analysis (probably most of historians never heard about him) in which year they made their works and weather it was before or after Sand era, is beyond the scope of my work here). Again if anyone is interested to receive Poliak book, translated to English, contact me through Wiki mail. I am ready to send it through post.--Tritomex (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a scholar's work, making patently false claims in the face of clear evidence that he maintained a position you, waving inaccessible unknown unnamed private sources, twice denied he held. We do not use primary sources but secondary and tertiary sources that reliably report their contents (WP:RS) You persist in the denial in the face of the evidence I have provided. This obstinacy and, I presume, mendacity or bluffing, is a sanctionable offence. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think Tritomex will be soften by this other very valid point anymore than the, what, 4-5 other ones. Clearly, Tritomex is a crusader on a mission, valuing faith more than facts and horning in just one note. Please don't lose your time trying to rationalize with him, but instead spot all traces of his bias for a potential case for the admin to decide. It will be out of our hands soon, IMO. MVictorP (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is truth that we use secondary sources, however Poliak book is already secondary source. What I wanted to point out and let me now correct myself is that you did not red any of Poliak book.--Tritomex (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why you want first to censor Bernard Lewis now to censor Moshe Gil. It seems that anything beside Elhaik whose name was unknown before 2012 to anyone of us, has the place here. While you added Elhaik in all possible and impossible articles, claiming he is not fringe, a work done by one of the most prominent Jewish historian and one of the most prominent academic scholars of Arabic historians is somehow fringe. All of this despite the fact that all historians and geneticists have diametrically opposite view from Elhaik. What a double standard isn't?_ What Bernard Lewis said is view held by all historians. Yet he also has no place here: He said what he said before Elhaik enlighted everyone, now he likely think othervise, so let us censor his works. Concerning Moshe Gil he is too old to be included! You admit that you never red Poliak, yet you know what he is writing. All historians and all historians agree that the Khazar Theory is not a valid historic theory are eighter too old, or quoted to early, or fringe, only Elahik&Sand deserve their place here as they are quoted in right time and during right age. And all of this is off course not POV pushing.--Tritomex (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the arguments of editors who are trying to sort out a mass of material in terms of the fundamental criteria of WP:Undue, and other policies. To repeat the assertion that somehow there is an attempt here to WP:Censor scholars like Bernard Lewis, or Moshe Gil is, apart from being ridiculous, a serious insinuation against the bona fides of colleagues here. You appear to showcase, with extensive citations of favourite snippets, that just happen to be dated, or counterfactual assertions by older scholars who are not au fait with contemporary Khazar studies. Lewis's remark will be included: but it is nonsensical to imply thereby that the many Jewish and Israeli scholars who, in the past and recently, have adopted, adapted or thought the Khazar-Ashkenazi minority hypothesis worthy of attention, respect or investigation, are Jewish self-haters (antisemites). Gil's essay was published in an obscure journal whose RS status was questioned by Zero some months ago, and reflects the thoughts of an 88 year old Zionist, who refuses to accept the scholarly consensus of all Khazar experts. Eran Elhaik is a young geneticist who has recently written a piece of research on the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis specifically, the first to do so. He therefore can't be excluded, and it is useless your trying to stack the page with the notorious Tritomex compilation of '23' genetic papers from 1996 to 2010 which come to different conclusions, since none of them criticize Elhaik. What you are doing there is pushing your the truth is known angle that genetics has determined the truth of Ashkenazi origins and nothing in scientific research contradicting that paradigm is permissible, which is violently anti-encyclopedic.

Lastly, you don't know the subject, are extemely confused about policies, constantly ignore serious queries by your interlocutors, and, assert you have private non-RS materials given to you by unidentified friends in Israel for this and other pages that help your work here. I.e. you admit that someone who apparently doesn't edit wikipedia is feeding you books and articles to influence the way certain topics are addressed. That is not, strictly speaking, evidence of WP:meatpuppetry, but it doesn't exclude it. All of this makes editing with you extremely difficult.(Nothing wrong with having friends in Israel, or Palestine, or anywhere, who help one obtain material, but we have a chronic problem in this area especially with pro-Israeli sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by banned users, and your note suggests you are unfamiliar with the issue. One must edit by one's own lights, not to assist outsiders who wish to see articles written in certain ways. We have a resource exchange here, and editors active on wikipedia who readily help each other out if they cannot access resources. Nishidani (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have no any valid rights to describe a professor emeritus of t Tel Aviv University as "88 years old Zionist who refuses to accept scholarly concensus" Concerning scholarly consensus all of us knows that it is diametrically opposite from the view held by two marginal scholars on this field Elhaik&Sand as all historians and all population genetic scientists without any exception consider the Khazar Theory as fringe, scientifically and historically unfounded. Yet your edits were aimed to erase this consensus, and as in other places and articles to replace mainstream views with marginal views.

Concerning Gil, Show us any source, criticism or evidence that his views are fringe. It is not upon me to show that the WP:RS has no fringe views but on those who oppose this views. Israel Bartal, Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Douglas Morton Dunlop, Bernard Lewis, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Anita Shapira and numerus other historians and geneticists who believe that there was no mass conversion of Khazars and are clearly stating that the Khazar Theory has no historic validation.--Tritomex (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)