Talk:Khazars/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The New Edits Just Won't Do

Tritomex, against all was discussed here on the talk page, you once again give undue weight to a single opinion, without giving necessary counter-balance, subjectively overcharging the article with a POV taint. You continue to consider the Khazarian Hypothesis as a myth, not as an individual but as a WP Editor, in spite of all the credible work that has been brought to you by your fellowship. More precisely, the connotation method you use here is called the "hamburger", where one squeezes the "ennemy" POV between two much more elaborated bread pieces. It's puerile and outrageous, and a showing of the illest will. You seem to consider that you are the sole intelligent guy among easy-to-fool idiots. I give you 24hrs to radically change your recent edits on this page, or I will delete them for the reasons mentionned. And once again, this is not a question of sources - it's about their treatment.

WP is not propaganda. Everybody can see your bias. If you can't be objective, let go of this article - and of WP editing. Your continued actions costs Wikipedia credibility. MVictorP (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore, I will bring your "case" to the admin if you don't comply, using this page as evidence. That's about enough. If you plan this answer this with more one-way rethorics, don't lose your time.MVictorP (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

MVictorP there are no collective views on historic subjects, all historians have individual views, and you can not threaten me here or on my channel page. I have nothing against edition of reliable sources telling the opposite from Moshe Gil. You are free to edit this page. However what you did here, was to remove reliable sources and Bernard Lewis is reliable source. If you want to add criticism of Lewis, Gil, Ben Sasson, Dunlop, Bartal, Atzmon, Behar, Molutsky, Shen, Thomas, genetic or historic scientists you are free to do it. However, what you are doing here with Nishadani is that you removed the work of Galassi and myself without any source because you simply do not like it. You created your account before few days, I am here for years. I witnessed 4 sockpuoppuets doing the same removals with same rhetoric. I advised you, not to follow them, not because I think your account belongs to same sockpuppets but because for every edits/reverts you need a source and you did not present any.--Tritomex (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pff! There you go, once again with one sided-rethorics and sources while my point is elsewhere. How surprising. As of this moment there's just no point discussing with you. I gave you 24 hours, tritomex. Use them well. MVictorP (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that my edits do not reflect the source properly, you are free to suggest changes and I will accept them. I can not make up things, outside the sources and references I have.--Tritomex (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposition were already offered, not one time you ever refered to them in your posts nor your actions. They're up there, still. I have no intent of entering your new edit war - althought I might be forced. MVictorP (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked you directly a) to read the sources b) to read my edits c) to propose DIRECTLY THE WORDING of changes and corrections.--Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I fiercely reject the whole of you edit, no matter how well-sourced it could be (and it is not). I already explained why. I just gave you time to remedy to it, and by doing so help your own case because you are indeed your own worst ennemy. There is little doubts as of yet in my mind that we will have to delete all of it. And then some, as I sadly realized for how much time you have been "working" here. MVictorP (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Tritomex didn't changed a iota of his last litigious edit, and that the article is now locked, I have filled, as promised, a template against Tritomex. MVictorP (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Attempt To Replace Deleted Section

I am still working out the synthax here, so I might not be able to post in the article yet, but given time, I will do it. But I intend to take this time to discuss what I propose, which roughly ressemble this:

Title: "Debate About Ashkenazi Links to Khazars" first Paragraph: Presentation of the existance of two, non-mutually exclusive but conflicting theories about the subject, namely, the Rhineland Hypothesis, and the Khazarian one. Second paragraph: Development of the more established Rhineland Theory, a quick description, its source evidences, and the relevant people who believe in it. Third Paragraph: Rewiew of the more recently-developped Khazarian Hypothesis, its bases and argumentation, as well as those relevant people who stand by it.

Of course, done, with all necessary and correct sourcing. What do you think? MVictorP (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that structuring this article based on contrasting those two theories is based on one of the genetics articles. Elhaik is my memory is correct? I do not think this is the way of presenting the options most sources would necessarily agree with?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Both sides have reasonneable genetics and non-genetic evidences to push their hypothesis, serious and scholarlized enough to not be considered as "fringe". I suggest we resume these evidences there, whitout judging them. As for the "Genetics", it is much too long and give undue weight to just one side of the debate. It's in my sights, to be integrated in the new section.

That being said I would like to read your proposition.MVictorP (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew.----Tritomex (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already written the history of the whole controversy in two paragraphs, with more than two dozen academic sources. Since I regard Tritomex's editing, to cite one problem, as deeply informed by both ignorance of the subject matter, wiki protocols, and POV-pushing I will withhold it until some rational consensus among editors emerges. To illustrate what is going on here

Moshe Gil is now entered with a fringe theory that the conversion never took place. All the scholars Tritomex cites as if people were hindering use of their works (Dunlop 1954 p.170, Ben-Sasson 1976 p.395, Bernard Lewis, 2013 p.61) agree with the scholarly consensus (Golb, Pritsak, Artamatov, Golden, Zimmerman, etc.etc. It is not controversial that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence points to conversion. Moshe Gil is the only scholar I know of (and totally out of his field) who challenges this. So. I'm asking editors to make a judgement on this. Otherwise, this place is a waste of time because editors are just standing by enjoying the way Tritomex is fucking up the process of honest editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So what if Moshe Gil is the only scholar holding this view (which is not the case). Do you thing Moshe Gil is unreliable? I properly attributed the claims to him. All historians and all geneticists are on position that the Khazarian theory of Ashkenazi Jews is not historic theory, yet you edited it multiple times in all possible articles related and unrelated to this subject through the only two persons on earth advocating this theory (Elhaik-Sand). Based on what you believe that Elhaik has its place here, and Moshe Gil (leading academic historian) has no place here? By Wp:NPOV; even if his views are minority view, it should be mentioned.--Tritomex (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please try and answer (you've been evasive all day, and still will not come clean on the fact that you haven't read, despite your assertions to the contrary, Poliak) directly and to the point. You have made a large entry to the page by Moshe Gil, denying conversion. I noted it was fringe. Your reply in the edit summary read (b) 'go to the fringe theory noticeboard') i.e. waste time and (b)'So what?'. Gil is fringe on this. Now you say other scholars share his view. Well, supply their names. Otherwise you are behaving erratically and wasting everybody's time.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ps.Moshe Gil is in my draft:'One scholar, Moshe Gil, dismisses the idea of conversion as a fiction, asserting Khazars were Muslims, and that there is no evidence about Jews in Khazaria, or Khazars converting to Judaism. Given the fact that his ideas challenge everything all experts concur on, even this brief notice is straining WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My contributions to this page have been primarily copyediting. On the conversion debate, I am a bystander. Yet it is clear even to me that the new addition relies too heavily on a single source, particularly for such a controversial claim. Tritomex says there are other sources supporting Gil, yet he cites none in the added passage. Surely there are reactions and counter-arguments to Gil, yet none are discussed. As a relative de novo reader of this material, the debate section fails utterly to educate. It presents a variety of issues and debates in seemingly random order, does not contrast or relate them, and fails to lead one through any parameters of the debate or sub-debates discussed. I realize there are a number of controversial issues at play, but an encyclopedic entry should focus on describing the issues of the debate without taking sides, and leading the interested reader to sources for further study. I look forward to seeing Nishidani's summary for this section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed offensive to other editors. I just want a fair editing environment where, if one works for several hours or days, only on the scholarly record, one may have some degree of assurance that anything one puts here won't be automatically erased, with invitations to start enermously diffuse, unfocused exchanges with the usual talk page blather. I don't expect anyone to join sides. But I do hope editors assist the smoothing out of differences of opinion, by asking that all editors keep focused, and reply to specific issues raised. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys/gals, please: Keep this section for constructive purposes. I have made a proposition - please comment on it or construct one for us to see. If you want to comment Tritomex' one-way editing, do it in the above section. Nishidani, I would like to see this work of yours. Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no longer two conflicting hypotheses (Rhineland vs Khazarian) since the Rhineland hypothesis is shakey and has been refined in several ways (the Balkan hypothesis), and the Khazarian hypothesis has several variants, including population drift of Jews and converts to Judaism fromn Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Georgia, Judea-Syria after the Muslim conquest, Greece/Byzantine outflow of Jewish communities, through the emerging Khazar empire. Therefore, that is best left to the Ashkenazi page (which cannot be edited because Tritomex keeps destroying attempts to allign it with contemporary scholarship). In any case it allows of now brief summation. This stricture applies to your other paragraphs.

We have to consider the inordinate size of this page, which is double the optimal length. Everything has to be boiled down, rather than expanded, though it is difficult given the quantity of information on this subject the page ignores (it may need a fork on the issue). That includes the genetic section, which should be strictly limited only to those geneticists (Ostrer, Elhaik, and a few others) who have directly, in their research, mentioned the Khazar hypothesis. As I see it, we should aim for three para.section entitled -The Ashkenazi-Khazar hypothesis: history, ideology (antisemitism) and genetics.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think MVictorP you have misunderstood me above. The point is that the concept of there being a "Rhineland hypothesis" which is the only main alternative to a Khazar hypothesis is far too limited, and I think you are using genetics sources for history here. Concerning genetic studies I think we should not be giving them a big place there, but if we use them it should be balanced, and that can be difficult. Perhaps MVictorP is not aware that this has been discussed a lot over at Genetic studies on Jews. Nishidani, I do have a bit of a concern about limiting our reference to authors who specifically mention the Khazar hypothesis as these will tend to be "pro" authors. In fact I'd say geneticists are normally going to be pretty wary of saying much on something like this. The problem is that if good studies Haber et al contain information which is opposed to Elhaik, you are saying we can not mention that. So I can see the policy based arguments for your proposal (avoiding WP:SYNTH), but also policy based concerns about it (WP:NPOV).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My take on the Gil article. It ought to be cited, but Tritomex's gushing review is way over the top. Gil is a famous scholar of Jewish history, but has no particular expertise on Khazars and his paper has so far been ignored by specialists. Tritomex, I don't know why it is so hard for you to write in accordance with WP:NPOV. No, Gil did not "point out" anything, he asserted it (though we usually just say that he wrote it). A reader should not be able to tell from the report whether you agree with Gil or not; but in fact it is totally obvious that you are eagerly promoting it. And your summary is very biased. I'll give one example. You: "Gil claimes that the Khazars were by 990 CE Muslims", Gil: "Shams al-Din ... in his book ... written in about 990 AD, describes the cities of the Khazars, noting that they used to be Jews but have already become Muslims." Why did you omit "they used to be Jews" and how does that square with the claim that they never became Jews? (It is a problem for Gil to answer, one of many his paper provokes, but you hid the existence of the problem by selective quotation.) About two sentences is enough to do justice to Gil's article. Zero^talk 12:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Gil, he is famous mostly as he is familiar with medieval Arab historians from whom almost all of our knowledge regarding Khazars derive. However, I agree with your proposal regarding the scope he should be mentioned. Give us your concrete proposal--Tritomex (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure of Debate Section

My comment above was addressed beyond the edit dispute to the overall structure of this broad section of the article. It begins well enough, with the discussion of who converted and when. We then have sub-sections, without explanation, on the Karaims, focusing on whether they are descendents of the Khazars, then the Krymchaks and whether they are ancestors. Then the debate on the Ashkenazi and lastly other claims of descent. Most of the "Debate about conversion" section is not about the conversion debate at all. The sections on descendants, and the debates over those, need to be separated into their own section (I. Debate on Conversion, II. Debates on Descendants), or sub-section (I.A., I.B.). Either way, introductions and transitions would be helpful. Regrettably, I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to attempt this myself amidst swirling controversies. When we reorganized the article in February, this area was identified as a Major Issue. Perhaps we can get some more, to quote Nishidani, editorial momentum together to at least make it coherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Most of these sections can be collapsed into one. The article with all its sections as we have it is a card-castle of tidbits, a bit like Churchill's pudding- it lacks a theme.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi-Khazar theories

Several scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe. This hypothesis is greeted with scepticism or caution by most scholars.

Abraham Eliyahu Harkavi suggested as early as 1869 that there might be a link between the Khazars and European Jews but the theory that Khazar converts formed a major proportion of Ashkenazi was first proposed to a Western public in a lecture by Ernest Renan in 1883. Occasional suggestions emerged that there was a small Khazar component in East European Jews in works by Joseph Jacobs (1886), Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, a critic of anti-Semitism, (1893) Maksymilian Ernest Gumplowicz, and by the Russian-Jewish anthropologist Samuel Weissenberg. In 1909 Hugo von Kutschera developed the notion into a book-length study, arguing Khazars formed the foundational core of the modern Ashkenazi. Maurice Fishberg introduced the notion to an American audience in 1911. The idea was also taken up by the Polish-Jewish economic historian and General Zionist Yitzhak Schipper in 1918 and by scholarly anthropologists, such as Roland B. Dixon (1923), and by writers like H. G. Wells (1921) who used it to argue that ‘The main part of Jewry never was in Judea’, a thesis that was to have a political echo in later opinion. In 1942, Abraham N. Poliak, later professor for the history of the Middle Ages at Tel Aviv University, published a Hebrew monograph in which he concluded that the East European Jews came from Khazaria. D.M. Dunlop, writing in 1954, thought very little evidence backed what he regarded as a mere assumption, and argued that the Ashkenazi-Khazar descent theory went far beyond what our imperfect records permit. Poliak's work found some support in Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur,but was dismissed by Bernard Weinryb as a fiction (1962).

The Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis came to the attention of a much wider public with the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe in 1976. which was both positively reviewed and dismissed as a fantasy, and a somewhat dangerous one. Israel’s ambassador to Britain branded it ‘an anti-Semitic action financed by the Palestinians,’ while Bernard Lewis claimed that the idea was not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and had been abandoned by all serious scholars. Raphael Patai, however, registered some support for the idea that Khazar remnants had played a role in the growth of Eastern European Jewish communities, and several amateur self-publishing researchers, such as Boris Altschüler (1994) and Kevin Alan Brook, kept the thesis in the public eye. The theory has been occasionally manipulated to deny Jewish nationhood. Recently, a variety of approaches, from linguistics (Paul Wexler) to historiography (Shlomo Sand) and population genetics (Eran Elhaik) has revived support for and interest in the theory. In broad academic perspective, both the idea that the Khazars converted en masse to Judaism, and the suggestion they emigrated to form the core population of Ashkenazi Jewry, remain highly polemical issues.

Use in anti-Semitic polemics.

Maurice Fishberg and Roland B Dixon’s works were later exploited in racist and religious polemical literature in both Britain, in British Israelism, and the United States. Particularly after the publication of Burton J. Hendrick ‘s The Jews in America (1923) it began to enjoy a vogue among advocates of immigration restriction in the 1920s; racial theorists like Lothrop Stoddard; anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorists like the Ku Klux Klan’s Hiram Wesley Evans; anti-communist polemicists like John O. Beaty and Wilmot Robertson, whose views influenced David Duke.According to Yehoshafat Harkabi (1968) it had played a role in Arab anti-Zionist polemics, and took on an anti-semitic edge. Bernard Lewis, noting in 1987 that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse. Although the Khazar hypothesis never played any major role in anti-semitism,, and though the existence of a Jewish kingdom north of the Caucasus had formerly long been denied by Christian religious commentators, it came to be exploited by the White supremicist Christian movement and even by terroristic esoteric cults like Aum Shinrikyō. Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Genetic evidence

A 2001 study found that differences among Ashkenazim might result from low-level gene flow from European populations and/ or genetic drift, with Jews more related to northern groups of the Fertile Crescent than to Arabs. The study also considered as attractive an alternative hypothesis - that Ashkenazim with R-M17 lineage might represent descent from converted Khazars who had settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine. Behar et al.(2003) found that while Cohanim had a common Middle Easter Jewish ancestry, Levites appeared to have multiple origins, with Ashkenazi Levites showing a high frequency of a distinctive, non–Near Eastern haplogroup. The Ashkenazi Levite haplogroup R1a1 component is shared with high frequency in East European populations, and while pinpointing the founder was difficult, the authors suggested that one attractive source would be the Khazar diaspora, which migrated north after the fall of the kingdom. While the NRY haplotype of most Ashkenazim and the microsatellite haplotype of R1a1 is consistent with a major Khazar or other European origin, ‘one cannot rule out the important contribution of a single or a few founders among contemporary Ashkenazi Levites.' Nebel et al.(2005) found that while Ashkenazi Jews are closer to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their European host populations, analysis of the elevated frequency of the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, R-M17, suggests a founder effect in the early Ashkenazi community and might represent ‘vestiges of the mysterious Khazars’ as they were absorbed by the emergent Eastern European Ashkenazi community. If so, the contribution was restricted to a single founder or a few male relatives, and does not exceed 12% of the modern day Ashkenazim. Atzmon et al 2010, using phylogenetic and IBD analysis, found similar origins for European/Syrian Jewry, refuting or making incompatible ‘large-scale’ Khazar or Slavic genetic inflow in the formation of the Ashkenazim, though admixture from both the latter was not excluded for the second millenium. The study concluded that:’ 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.’ Harry Ostrer arguing for a common Middle Eastern ancestry for all major Jewish groups, excluded any large-scale inflow from Khazars, though allowing for the possibility that some Khazarian admixture might have occurred. In the same year Eran Elhaik, using Georgians and Armenians as modern proxies for historical proto-Khazars, concluded the Khazar hypothesis for Ashkenazim had support, and that their ancestry was "a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries".Also in 2012 Nadia Abu El-Haj, in discussing Shlomo Sand’s version of the hypothesis and the genetic literature, wrote that that: ‘If the genome does not prove Sand wrong, neither can it prove him right.’ |}

Discussion of draft

Your proposed section, althought formidably sourced, is IMO a bit long and is pretty much all about the Khazarian Hypothesis and its development. This could be seen as POV.

And, I am ambiguous about letting zion politics taint the debate, here on this article. However it is loads better than the version I deleted. MVictorP (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is on the Khazars. Most of it deals with their history. A modern controversy exists, and therefore a section covering its three angles (a)history of the controversy (b)its uses by all sorts of manipulative groups and people as a meme to mock Jews (c) genetics, is required. This can be trimmed, but before we do that we need the full picture.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No major objections here. If a classification by genetics, history and language appears to be consensual instead of a classification by theories, then so be it. MVictorP (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for "restructuring" of this page, beside more POV pushing which is the clear intention here. You want to hide that all historians refuted the so called Khazar theory, replacing 23 genetic studies, numerous (ALL) historians off course again with same persons las you did elsewhere namely Elhaik/Sand and the person without any credibility for historic claims P.Wexler. For those unfamiliar with the subject, this are the only 2 persons in entire scientific world who support Khazar theory. Geneticists like Hammer, Shen, Thomas, Semino, Behar, Atzmon, Molusky Israel historians Bartal(who refured Sand) Anita Shapia, Dunlop, Moshe Gil, Golden, Ben Sasson, Bernard Lewis etc. This is the same what you did in numerous articles.

You were already told by Andrew, that we do not see the need for restructuring of this page, and attempts to erase ALL historic and genetic studies which confirms mainstream scientific position on this subject under the pretext of "restucturing" is the clear intention here --Tritomex (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not tell Nishidani any such thing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I refered to this remark, I guess not intended to anyone specifically [1]--Tritomex (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex I would have thought it was clear that this was a very specific concern about a very specific proposal. I can't see how you can generalize that posting in the way you did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex. You snippet-edit for agreeable POV quotes that back your thesis. There is no record of your (a) thoroughly revising poor pages (b) doing anything other than putting your favorite quotes in to (b) fix the page so that it presents the 'truth' as you have constructed it. The above draft does not take sides. It provides a complete picture of all of the material raised by various editors. Your only response is to contest it because (i) you dislike the drafter and (ii) it aims for WP:NPOV, meaning that it does not tell a triumphant fiction that the theory is racist, and no serious scholar thinks it anything but confuted rubbish. Try and be constructive, and tell us what is technically wrong, in your view, with this presentation. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And if you read back, you will see that last night I remarked that the section requires three subsections, of which I provided above two in draft, while leaving out the genetics section. I.e. that is not excluded from my proposed reorganization. But, as one may judge from my handling above, it must be synthetic, to the point, balanced for NPOV, and not sprawl with comfy quotes.Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to prove what I did on Wikipedia, among other things many articles on many languages, I personally created like Lachish relief or King Ahaz's Seal are testimonial of my work.--Tritomex (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to note these stubs. There are a lot of problems, however, in sourcing, proper English, etc. there. The Ahaz bulla has I source, despite the appearance of several, etc. I won't go into them, but Christoph Uehlingerì’s paper is attributed to the editor of the volume (Grabbe) in which it appears, just as you attribute to Israel Finkelstein, one of the editors, views that the other editor Amihai Mazar, advanced.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani, thank you for making efforts to change previous extremly POV proposition. However, the point of Bernard Lewis contrary to Yehoshafat Harkabi is not that this theory is used in modern Antisemitism, but that this is historically invalid theory.--Tritomex (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Nishidani not giving any representation of the fact that reliable sources have said the theory is false?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see, my mistake.

1)Now Andrew question to you: Do you belive that this artickle needs major "restructuring"? If yes what will happen with other well sourced material already part of this article? I am against their removal.

2) Nishadani, plaese provide direct link to your claim about Patai, Dunlop also needs to be mentioned.

It's in the bibliography below Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

3) Concerning self published and non academic researchers, there are many and I do not think they should be part of Wikipedia article.

I never use such sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

4) regarding Bernard Lewis, I propose the following sentence: Bernard Lewis claimed that this theory has no historic base, noting also that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse.--Tritomex (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already added that. I'm fine with the rephrasing you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

5) regarding Poliak, also please provide link for such claim. Also for Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur becuase I never heard that they advocated this theory.

It's all in Shlomo Sand's book as my notes indicate.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

6) I propose also editing the following sentence "While most of historians agree that the Khazar royalty and nobility adopted some form of Judaism, the theory claiming that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars is not supported by most of historians. However, historian Shlomo Sand came in support of this theory, while Moshe Gil rejected any scale of conversion, based on medieval Arab texts.--Tritomex (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It confuses two sections. Moshe Gil goes into the conversion section, Shlomo Sand here. In commingling two distinct issues of scholarship, you are proposing a total mess.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

7) The view of Israeli ambassador is not important for this article.--Tritomex (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of the oddballs in the American fringe lunatic conspiracy list we've given much detail to, by tthe same criterion, should be eliminated. We cite many nobodies as if they were important. For balance, the Israeli ambassador goes in.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex in answer to your question I have no objection to discussing ideas to restructure the Jewish-Khazar connection section. Being concerned with any change of "structure" would in fact be odd, given that we are only talking about a small section of an article. I find Nishidani has put good work in to try to get a balance using a lot of referencing. Perhaps in an imaginary perfect world we could say that it could be compressed, because it is essentially a digression from Khazar discussion. But I think the history of this article shows that explaining the historical context of such ideas is needed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography used:-

• Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press, 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9
• Atzmon G, Hao L, Pe'er I, Velez C, Pearlman A, et al. 'Abraham's children in the genome era: major Jewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters with shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,' American Journal of Human Genetics, 2010, 86: 850–859. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.015
• Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, UNC Press, 1997, ISBN 978-0-807-84638-4 .
• Salo Wittmayer Baron A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia University Press, 1957 vol.3
• Doron M. Behar, Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, Michael F. Hammer, Ekaterina Bulygina, Dror Rosengarten, Abigail L. Jones, Karen Held, Vivian Moses, David Goldstein, Neil Bradman, and Michael E. Weale, 'Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries,' in American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003 October; 73(4): 768–779. PMC 1180600
• Paul F. Boller, Memoirs of an Obscure Professor: And Other Essays, TCU Press 1992 ISBN 978-0-875-65097-5
• Ben-Zion Dinur, Yisrael ba-gola (Israel in Exile) vol.1 (details required)
• D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton University Press, 1954
• Louis H. Feldman Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton University Press, 1996 ISBN 978-1-400-82080-1
• Eric L. Goldstein,The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, Princeton University Press ‎2006 p.131 ISBN
• Moshe Gil, 'Did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?,' in Revue des Études Juives, Vol.170, Issue: 3-4 July-December 2011 pp. 429-441 DOI: 10.2143/REJ.170.3.2141801
• David G. Goodman, Masanori Miyazawa Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype, Lexington Books (1995) 2000 ISBN 978-0-739-10167-4
• Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan cults, esoteric nazism, and the politics of identity, NYU Press,(2001) 2003. ISBN 9780814731550
• Andrew Colin Gow, The” Red Jews: Antisemitism in the Apocalyptic Age 1200-1600, BRILL, 1995 ISBN 978-9-004-10255-2
• Yehuda Halevi,The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, trans N.D.Korobkin, Northvale, New Jersey- Jerusalem 1998
• Yehoshafat Harkabi, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Helen Fein, (ed.) The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 978-3-110-10170-6, pp.412-427
• Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, (1976) Pan, London 1977
• Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, W.W. Norton and Company, 1987, ISBN 978-0-393-30420-6,
• Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-1-135-03021-6
• Jacob Litman, The Economic Role of Jews in Medieval Poland: The Contribution of Yitzhak Schipper, Lanham, University Press of America 1984
• 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,' in American Journal of Human Genetics, 2001, Vol. 69, number 5. pp. 1095–1112.
• Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Marina Faerman, Himla Soodyall and Ariella Oppenheim. 'Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews,' in European Journal of Human Genetics 2005, vol.13, 388–391. doi|10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201319
• Harry Ostrer Legacy:A Genetic History of the Jewish People, Oxford University Press 2012, ISBN 978-0-199-97638-6
• Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai Wing The Myth of the Jewish Race, (1975) Wayne State University Press 1989 ISBN
• Antony Polonsky, Jakub Basista, Andrzej Link-Lenczowski, (eds.) The Jews in Old Poland: 1000-1795, I B Tauris & Company 1993 ISBN 978-1-850-43342-2
• Vadim Joseph Rossman, Russian Intellectual Antisemitism in the Post-Communist Era, University of Nebraska Press, 2002 ISBN 978-0-803-23948-7
• Robert Singerman, Contemporary Racist and Judeophobic Ideology Discovers the Khazars, or, Who Really Are the Jews?, Rosaline and Myer Feinstein Lecture Series,2004
• Moses A. Shulvass, The History of the Jewish People, Regnery Gateway, 1985,vol. 2, pp. 116-18. ISBN 978-0-895-26657-6)
• H G Wells, The Outline of History: The Roman Empire to the Great War,, Barnes & Noble reprint 2004, vol.2 ISBN 978-0-760-75867-0 Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Poliak, Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur I insist original quotes or quotes from original literature as Israel Bartal accused Shlomo Sand of falsifying some of his claims and nowhere in any literature I found such claims.

Also When I spoke about armature historians I speoke about K.A.Brook and similar who in my op pinion should not be part of this article.

Dunlop view that the Khazarian thoery of Ashkenazi Jews has no historic evidence should be included.

If shlomo Sand is included, the most famous living Jewish historian Israel Bartal must be included also (by Wp:NPOV)

Israel Bartal writes : "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is. Like him, I am not one of those who support the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies against minority groups in this country in the name of arguments pretending to represent “historical values.” However, critical readers of Sand’s study must not overlook the intellectual superficiality and the twisting of the rules governing the work of professional historians that result when ideology and methodology are mixed...Moreover, the author’s treatment of Jewish sources is embarrassing and humiliating. What serious reader who knows the history of modern Hebrew literature can take seriously the views expressed in a book that defines “Bohen tsadik” (Investigating a Righteous Man), a satirical (fictional!) work by the Galician intellectual and supporter of the Haskalah Yosef Perl (1773-1839), as something that was written by a person named Yitzhak Perl and which “contains 41 letters from rabbis that relate to various aspects of Jewish life”? Who would attest to the accuracy of facts in a research study where it is stated that historian Joseph Klausner (1874-1958) — a scholar who never was (despite his burning ambition to do so) a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and who, instead, served there as a professor of Hebrew literature — “was in fact the first official historian of the ?Second Temple period’ at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem”? Does such sloppiness reflect the author’s attitude to the subject of his research? Or, perhaps, because everything is an invention anyway, it does not really matter whether the “imagined object” is black or white?"

Anita Shapira wrote: Sand is bent on undermining the traditional Jewish narrative, which depicts the Jewishpeople of today as the descendants of the biblical and Second Temple Jews who lost their land,dispersed over the world, yet retained their bond to the land-of-Israel homeland, to which – as the Scroll of Independence states – they have now returned. This portrayal of the Jewish people, he contends, is the result of the work of the great Jewish historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially Heinrich Graetz, Simon Dubnow, and Ben-Zion Dinur. The “bad guys” in the story are the historians for having invented the Jewish people. Sand does not distinguish between Zionists and other types of Jewish nationalists; hence he situates Graetz and Dubnow in the bosom of Zionism, as having created the national narrative that eventually served Zionism. He dismisses the great Jewish historians and finds fault with the concepts of sociologist Anthony Smith because they are not consistent with his own conceptions. .... This topic has been treated in a comprehensive article by my colleague, Israel Bartal, and I will not deal with it again here. At the heart of Sand’s book we find the claim that the Jews of Eastern Europe, the “Yiddish people” by his definition, do not originate with the Jews who came from the Middle East via Ashkenaz to Poland, but with the Khazars, nomadic tribes that built an empire between the Black and the Caspian seas, converted to Judaism in the eighth century, and scattered to the four winds when their state was destroyed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Sand claims that until the 1960s the “Zionist reconstructors of the past” (well-known forgers) did not conceal the Khazar origins of Jews but since then, a “time of silence” has cloaked the subject. He surmises that the change stemmed from one of two causes: either (1) decolonization, which made it necessary to prove that Jews are not merely the white settlers of a country not theirs (such claims against Zionism had already emerged at the start of the British Mandate, during that very same period in which, according to Sand, the Zionists did not conceal their Khazar origin); or (2) the added weight given to ethnicity in the politics of identity in the 1970s (but, he claims that the “time of silence” began earlier. There were people who took pains to play down the Khazar connection, Sand asserts, “as the state’s memory mechanisms became established and consolidated in the State of Israel” (pp. 206–8). The idea of a conspiracy of dark forces sitting and plotting what to excise from collective memory reflects the paranoia of an ideological minority that seemingly believes that if they were in power, this is how they would behave. Have historians really claimed what Sand is attributing to them? It appears that their assertions were far more qualified though they did mention the Khazars and were even enthusiastic about the idea of a Jewish kingdom in the early Middle Ages. On the question of the Khazars, Sand’s methods again come to the fore as he grabs at the most unorthodox theory in the field and stretches it to the outer limits of logic and beyond. A few examples: scholars disagree on whether all the Khazars or only the monarchy and aristocratic elite converted to Judaism. To Sand it is clear that all the Khazars converted. When the Khazar state was conquered by the Russians and the royal family and nobility were apparently killed, the sources speak about some of the Khazars converting to Islam and some to Christianity. Some apparently continued to be Jewish, settling in the Crimean Peninsula and the city of Kiev in Russia. What the actual figures were remains unknown, but they did not number in the masses. The sources are very sparse; to the extent that there is any archeological evidence, it is very little. The whole subject straddles the seam between legend and historical reality. The most esteemed scholar of the Khazar monarchy, by Sand’s own acknowledgment, is D. M. Dunlop, a British non-Jew in command of the languages needed to study the Khazars, on whom information is found in Arabic, Hebrew, Byzantine and Chinese literature. This information is fragmentary and at times contradictory. Dunlop, at the end of his book, relates to the theory that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the descendants of the Khazars; he states that “This can be dealt with very shortly, because there is little evidence which bears directly upon it, and it unavoidably retains the character of a mere assumption"

Note that Heinrich Graetz, Simon Dubnow, and Ben-Zion Dinur are all mentioned on opposite side from Shlomo Sand. This is among others one of reason why I insist on original quotes from them. So if Shlomo Sand is included by WP.NPOV Bartal and Shapira should be included too.

Off course Dunlop, Dubin and Gil. Concerning the criticism of Khazar assumptions of Sand I propose also to read Hillel Halkin and Simon Schama,--Tritomex (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• most famous living Jewish historian Israel Bartal.

Well that’s your point of view. Others would give the honour to Yehuda Bauer. or a few other grises eminences. Boosterism like this is pointless.

• Concerning Poliak, Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur I insist original quotes or quotes from original literature.

No. This shows you are unfamiliar with policy. See WP:V

• armature historians I spoke about K.A.Brook and similar who in my op pinion should not be part of this article.

’Armature’ is a beautiful portmanteau neologism, a Carrollian meld of ‘armchair’ (historian) and ‘amateur (historian). Commendable. But I’m afraid your objection only shows you fail to observe that he is cited by Peter Golden, and in wikipedia, if an amateur armchair historian is cited by a world authority on the subject, he gets into the text via that source.

• Dunlop view that the Khazarian thoery of Ashkenazi Jews has no historic evidence should be included.

Acceptable. I have added the relevant remarks to the text.

• If Shlomo Sand is included, the most famoues current Jewish historian Israel Bartal must be included also (by Wp:NPOV) He wrrites: "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is.

No. Your quote doesn’t correct any error in my use of Sand. And, were this a precedent, every book quoted would have to be accompanied by the critical literature of peer scholars who have found something wrong in it. We don’t do that. No one does it.

• Anita Shapira wrrote:

Of course, a generic criticism of Sand, which is neither here nor there. Many scholars see her work as vitiated by Zionist sympathies (‘the bellwether of Zionist sympathies’ was Norman Finklestein’s phrase), but we cite her nonetheless in articles without mentioning that fact. The passage you quote from her is itself, at a glance, defective, and she is on unsure ground, taking Dunlop (1954) to be the final word on a subject that has had an enormous amount of fresh scholarship added to it in the last three decades, etc.

In general, please do not presume that other editors are unfamiliar with these things. Quoting blocks of irrelevant material on a scholar who is RS for this specific topic is pointless, and assumes one is not familiar with it. This is not a bartering place where one argues for everything one wants. Reasonable points will be accepted. Attempts to challenge RS generically are mistaken unless what has been used for the article from a source is specifically noted in the critical literature to be defective. From your material, neither Bartal, Shapira or anyone else has challenged those three or four points I have cited from Sand’s book, and therefore introducing them is inflative, distractive and WP:IDONTLIKEIT-crabbing at a source for non-textual reasons.

Generally your remarks overlook the function of the section which is to highlight the landmarks in the development of a theory, and its sceptics. I could gloss every name there with secondary sources critical of Schipper, Renan, Koestler et. al. That is not the point of NPOV writing of an historical synthesis of the landmarks in a geneaology of ideas.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First, with sources I have serious doubts about claims made here. Shlomo Sand has been accused by one of most prominent Jewish historian Israel Bartal of falsifying claims from other Jewish historians and yet this claims are proposed by Nishadani to be included per Sand controversial book (because they do not exist in original form)(the same sources and same quotes Bartal accused Sand of misinterpreting, while Anita Shapira even claimed that this historians wrote directly the opposite than it is claimed) I asked Nishidani to provide links to Poliak ,Ben-Zion Dinur, Baron etc. The claims made here DO NOT EXIST IN THEIR BOOKS!!! and of course he will not be able to provide those links. Abraham Harkavy who suggested that Krymchaks, Karaims are descendants of Khazars is here linked with Ashkenazi. K. A.Brook an amateur historian who is according to Nishadani reliable source does not even advocate the Khazar Theory as Sand, but as he writes in his book (and his website) he believes that "Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of ancient Israelites and Khazars" with higher portion of Israelite contribution. Yet this is again thrown out. The views of controversial french cinema history professor Shlomo Sand, whose material on Khazars received enourmes quantity of criticism from academic society from accusations of falsification and misinterpretation to invention of claims (to quote Bartal) is presented without any of this criticism as established fact. No criticism-as if there was no any. In the era of population genetics a racist book from 1923 is used with claim that "The Arabs of Palestine are probably more closely related to the Judeans" which is btw totally unrelated to subject and POV pushing. Everything is sourced with Sand&Elhaik, occasionally with the amateur historian Brook,(whose reliability according to Nishidani lies in the fact that he is mentioned by Golden -although I again did not saw the link)

Huge amount of literature is written bellow b Nishidani, still not a single DIRECT LINK to any of claim made here. Dubin,Bartal, Ben Sasson, Shapira, Gil, Hillel Halkin, Simon Schama,Yehoshafat Harkabi all historians representing 99% of academic views on this subject opposing Khazar Theory are nowhere. Shlomo Sand/Elhaik, the only two scholars advocating this theory are everywhere and of course without any criticism. The whole article will look like a Résumé of Shlomo Sand and his book. This kind of substitution of currently relatively balanced article with unsourced and misinterpreted ideological pamphlet is totally unacceptable in my opinion. btw I will be absent in coming days.--Tritomex (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You've done no real work, and raised endless complaints, many of which suggest you are not reading my sources or my edit proposal. I accepted two suggestions. If you can bullet-point where I have misrepresented sources, please note them down. I can't, no one can, cope with flag-waving and generic expostulations about Dubin,Bartal, Ben Sasson, Shapira, Gil, Hillel Halkin, Simon Schama,Yehoshafat Harkabi, only one of whom has a direct direct professional competence in this matter. Please write succinctly and to the point. This is not an agony column, and I'm not a fifth column. The only columns here that count are the four pillars.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

From all of this academic historians of the Jewish people, leading academic professors OF JEWISH HISTORY only one has direct professional competence in this matter??? and Shlomo Sand has direct professional competence in this matter??? Common, Nishidani. I do not think you are serious on this. Concerning wording/sourcing I already said that your wording/claims regarding Poliak ,Ben-Zion Dinur, Baron etc do not exist in their original books. That is why Israel Bartal acused Sand of falsifying Jewish historians and that is why you are unable to provide original references from their books.

I will be absent for few days. Wishing everyone all the best--Tritomex (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are, again, misreading, creating phantom adversaries and throwing sand into the eyes.

Sand's book has a lengthy chapter on the Khazars in Jewish and Israeli historiography, reading it in terms of the historical stresslines that show as historians struggled with prejudice and nationalism in the 19th century, and the same when Zionism appeared. This is normal historical work. Simon Schama doesn't like it? Well Eric Hobsbawn did. Anita Shapira doesn't like it. Well Tony Judt did. Israel Bartal doesn't like it, well Tom Segev does, etc. Israel critical opinion falls into a divide depending on one's political allegiances and proximity or distance from Zionism. That's obvious, and need not distract us here.

I already said that your wording/claims regarding Poliak ,Ben-Zion Dinur, Baron etc do not exist in their original books.

The claims made here DO NOT EXIST IN THEIR BOOKS!!! and of course he will not be able to provide those links.

Please don't waste my time. You have not read Poliak's original book since you do not know Hebrew, and the excuse that someone gave you a private translation has no value for wikipedia, especially since good sources cite it for the material your pseudo-translation putatively lacks. You evidently have not examined the original books or Sand. Get your friends to send you a copy of Salo Wittmayer Baron,A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 1957 Columbia University Press, vol.3, pp.200-206,p.206: Ben-Zion Dinur, Yisrael ba-gola (1926;3rd ed., 5 vol., 1961–66) vol.1 pp2,5 both cited and translated in Sand p.242 (It is not clear which edition of the many times revised and reprinted Israel ba-gola Sand is using). I need not supply these, because, as I have endlessly repeated, unless a secondary source contests Sand's citations on this specific issue as incorrect, there can be no objection under wikipedia's rules to using him for the point.

Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

I moved this from above: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning genetics maybe all we need do is add one or two sentences about what is least controversial such as

"The hypothesis of Khazarian ancestry in Ashkenazi has also been a subject of discussion in the new field of population genetics, wherein claims have been made concerning evidence both for and against it.[ref to Elhaik and a few others] Comparisons of modern Palestinians and modern Ashkenazi show evidence that Palestinians have relatively more Arabian ancestry, and Ashkenazi have relatively more ancestry from both European, and northern Middle Eastern and Caucasian populations.[ref to Haber and a few others]"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, Nishidani, I wabt to command you for the great work that you are doing - and as your knowledge surpasses my own, I won't distract. However, my concerns about the article is that it talks about Jews more than Khazars. I think the article, at this point, needs some cleanup concerning myriads of more or less relevant opinions, redundancy and attemps at propaganda (by giving undue weight - not you guys' fault). MVictorP (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Andrew. Personally I prefer secondary sources for citing these research papers. Have you read Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press, 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9 (I'm citing through the link just the pages dealing with Sand (see esp.pp.1-2, p.28), but the whole book is invaluable for the way it shows the ideological tensions running through the research models you cite. One particularly important one is that the patriarchal line results are showcased (affinity with Middle East) and the matriarchal line results ignored, because they don't support the simplistic model,etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not read it, but by definition it will be out of date. That is indeed a problem with secondary sources in genetics, and that is why I do not think this article, where it is only a side issue, should be bogged down to much with it. But one practical thing I can say is that my proposal above was essentially saying that if we want to say something we should use the latest autosomal studies (not Y or mitochondrial DNA). These use all the nuclear DNA and are most suitable for comparing the ancestries of whole populations. The problem, as we know from the Jewish DNA article, is that such studies still need to give a name to the ancestral components they find, and hence the often silly assignments of "proxies" for ancient populations. So for example as per Haber et al, the component which Druze and Ashkenazi and Caucasians share seems to be something from the pre Arabic fertile crescent, but Elhaik interprets basically the same component (which pretty much every study now sees) as evidence of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi. Hence my draft, which tries to avoid synthesis, but also tries to avoid getting bogged down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If Nadia Abu El-Haj is outdated (late April 2012 = submitted early 2011) for genetics bearing on this, then all genetic papers likewise published and preceding 2011 are outdated? I thoroughly agree we should not get bogged down in excessive detail. My approach is simply to cite the main research, papers and seondary literature in genetics, which explicitly cite the Khazar instance. Several do. I wouldn't go into details. From an historian's angle, the argument is irrelevant, for (a) many scholars accept that Jewish populations, by lineage or conversion were in the area from northern Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Georgia, northern Anatolia, through to Greece several centuries before the Khazars occupied the area (b) the Khazar hypothesis allows for 30 tribes, of highly varied ethnicity, in that territory and argues that both Jewish populations (converts, descended from converts, mixed marriages or refugees from the deep south, Iran, or Iraq and Palestine-Syria) and converted Khazars formed (probably) a minor if notable part of that. Nadia Abu El-Haj's argument, for one, is that:'‘the genome cannot prove Shlomo Sand wrong . .neither can it prove him right‘ (p.28). All historical interpretation is essentially hypothetical. Anyone seeking for certainty should go elsewhere. Genetics seems often more self-assured. I am not convinced, since even that discipline is inflected by interests. The hard thing in these articles is to ensure nothing is spun (skewed) out of what the best relevant sources report. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to keep it short I see no actual problem citing this source, but I doubt we should use it alone? I think we agree we are looking for a simple fair rule of thumb which gives a least worst solution. This is kind of how I was thinking already. Let me explain it in more steps.

• One very simple proposal is to leave genetics out. I personally would have no problem with that.
• Slightly more complex: Just a sentence saying something like my first sentence above:

  The hypothesis of Khazarian ancestry in Ashkenazi has also been a subject of discussion in the new field of population genetics, wherein claims have been made concerning evidence both for and against it.[ref to maybe Elhaik Haber and other most recent references from our autosomal section in the Jewish DNA article; or can we just do a "see also" with a wl?]

  Maybe we should also add

  There is no current consensus on whether this Caucasian-like component represents evidence that might indicate Khazar ancestry amongst Ashkenazi.

• Going a bit further we could consider inserting, between the above two sentences, my other sentence from the above proposal:

  Comparisons of modern Palestinians and modern Ashkenazi show evidence that Palestinians have relatively more Arabian ancestry, and Ashkenazi have relatively more ancestry from both European, and northern Middle Eastern and Caucasian populations.

  --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I dislike genetic articles on history pages, but the precedent is all over wikipedia unfortunately. Given this personal distaste, of course I would prefer a very short synthetic mention of the subject, along the lines you propose, and see nothing wrong with your examples. It's just that I'm a realist, and I doubt Tritomex will accept it. As to Al-Haj, of course not. In my drafts Ostrer (2012) and others are used as well. I think in any case we need all hands on board, to avoid futile bickering. I'd like to hear on this what Jeppiz and Laszlo, and any other editor here, think would be the best solution, so we can proceed provisorily to work out something that has consensual backing in terms of length and outline.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be very honest I had read your draft to quickly and had thought it contained nothing on genetics. I do not see a problem with a quick mention of "studies" with Elhaik as an example. As you say, as long as it causes no endless debate. (Vain wish.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, but I've given a footnoted reformulation of your proposed text. I have added extensive notes to each citation (not finished, and having reexamined the originals, which must be done. At this drafting stage, I think the evidence from each source should be laid out in a footnote, and my criteria are, to cite intext only those papers (not newspaper commentaries) which specifically address the Khazar-Ashkenazi issue. This is your field, and you will have more to add, or to correct in my use of these sources. But at this stage, we can experiment. Therefore

Andrew's proposal

The hypothesis of Khazarian ancestry in Ashkenazi has also been a subject of discussion in the new field of population genetics, wherein claims have been made concerning evidence both for and against it. There is no current consensus on whether this Caucasian-like component represents evidence that might indicate Khazar ancestry amongst Ashkenazi. Comparisons of modern Palestinians and modern Ashkenazi show evidence that Palestinians have relatively more Arabian ancestry, and Ashkenazi have relatively more ancestry from both European, and northern Middle Eastern and Caucasian populations.

Of course, you can see the evidence only in edit-mode. CheersNishidani (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for efforts Nishidani. As discussed above, I do not currently have a strong preference for actually using this proposal I have helped make. My aim was to try to show a way of writing which hopes to avoid getting bogged down. Concerning the last reference maybe Haber et al works?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're the expert. My only problem is whether it is advisable to cite papers here that do not directly refer to the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory. I can't (am reading) see any hint that Haber and co.do, and the risk is of course that we introduce (WP:OR) material not bearing directly on the topic in order to make a general statement. Still, I've given the provisory source. These things take time.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if I'd call myself an expert but I've been dragged through a few of these discussions. I do see the problem you mean of bordering on synthesis. This is what I described as a dilemma above, concerning whether we should include anything. If we only include genetic studies specifically talking about Khazar theories we are limiting ourselves to what I think are relatively weaker and less uncontroversial studies, while the strong relevant sources are being kept from mention to our readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See the reasoning here where, again all commonsense, I was told that where two themes are combined (Antisemitism and Christianity sources for one, must also deal with the other. I.e. on the 'Khazar/Ashkenazi and genetics' section, genetic sources, by analogy, must deal with the Khazars and the Ashkenazi. I don't personally agree with that reading of WP:OR - no article can be written well under such an extreme interpreation, but that's what one administrator insisted was the case, and when other parties were asked (on this), they supported his interpretation. So, since the matter is delicate and controversial, I'm happy to apply it here to avoid all edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Very quick note looking at your draft. Eu19 is identical to R-M17, and I see no point using the old name. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Expiration and getting back to work

The protection of the page expires today. Once it has been removed, unless objections are raised, I will edit in the two workpage drafts on the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory and antisemitism, leaving time for Tritomex to get back and comment on the two genetics section drafts.

In the design of the page, I imagine that the logical order for reorganizing the tidbitty approach we have, where numerous sections inject thematic tidbits, is by chronological development, with thematic divisions. I personally would like to incorporate all the relevant material in the disiecta membra sections into one consistent, chronological coherent, integrated narrative.

• Byzantium (done)
• Arab frontier wars (done)
• Conversion (awaiting revision)
• Trade into the north, the height of empire (map of extent), the rise of the Rus' (to be done), sacking of Sarkel by Svatislav.
• Decline and dispersion (theories re Kiev, etc; Karaim; Karaites; Hungary (Kabars); Crimea; etc)
• Theories of Ashkenazi-Khazar links (history) (done)
• Antisemitic uses (done)
• Genetic evidence (2 drafts, consensus required).

Any suggestions, or objections? Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not been able to help more or comment in more detail, but I think you are doing good work Nishidani. There might eventually be details I have not noticed, but your overall reasoning and approach to WP policy always seems correct to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe one second thought. Possibly the only thing I noticed so far which is a likely future discussion is whether the improved article will be too big. However I think WP has a normal approach to such "problems" and it is easier to get the article in good order first and then consider splitting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My aim is to get it down to 70-80,000 kb, 90,000 at the most. It's just a matter of synthesis, reduction in sprawl and sources. It'll look overlarge until I've got rid of the huge reduplications here. I'm doing this slowly so that all editors can check that, in the end, nothing invaluable in the original article is sacrificed to that end. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Nishidani and Andrew, this page is a lot closer to WP's high standards by the time I write this. Thanks again, guys. MVictorP (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Maps

There are far too mahny maps on this page. I think 14, at last count. I can't see any reason for having more than 4, chosen for key periods, perhaps early, time of greatest expansion, and a diaspora map perhaps, etc. I'd really appreciate some incisive input by other editors, particularly anybody with experience in that department. If this is a fair comment (excessive mapping) which ones are obvious candidates for removals (first the easy choices)? Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving down the page:

• 1) The infobox map is pretty good, relatively accurate though it depicts a long period of time;
• 2) Pontic steppe 650 - so-so, imprecise, not sure how accurate, perhaps keep as before pic;
• 3) Ummayad Caliphate - generally decent map, but tangential to topic, could easily go;
• 4) Caucasus - I added this, so I'll defer to other opinions, but it does specifically depict the area discussed in the corresponding Arab wars section;
• 5) Sarkel pic (not a map) - I've always found this of dubious value;
• 6) Radhanites 870 - very similar to 7 & 12 but with all of Eurasia, unnecessary, remove;
• 7) Geographical extent - 7 & 12 are similar, both have merit, either/or, maybe both;
• 8) Khazaria 600-850 - similar to infobox map, odd orientation, remove;
• 9) Hungarian migration - tangential, remove;
• 10) Viking expansion - tangential, imprecise, remove;
• 11) Khazaria 950 - like #2, imprecise, dubious boundaries, remove;
• 12) Early Rus' - see 7;
• 13) Pontic steppe 1015 - much like 2 & 11, did Pechenegs really control that much territory?;
• 14) Near East 1025 - a lot of extra space, but perhaps as an after pic;
• 15) Scythia - remove.

So: I'd keep the infobox map; 2 as a before pic; 4 I'll leave up to others; 5 pic if others find it useful; 7 and/or 12; 13 or 14 as an after pic. Wow, I thought I'd leave more going in, but... Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The only point I'd hesitate over (5) Sarkel (will enter details) was a key city, the only one which we had the opportunity of excavating thoroughly to recreate the Khazar urban world, and theis photo was taken before the Soviet Union put in a dam and flooded it, destroying its vast value for history thereby.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one map to consider adding in the trade/Rus' section as it shows the trade routes through the steppe region. It highlights the Varangian routes, but it has a decent layout of the neighborhood and also shows other routes through Khazar territory. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

By all means take the lead on maps, LP. I've 'taken out' (not allusion to army slang) several, and hope I wasn't confused (working tomatoes under a hot sun, and disappointment over Alonso's placing in the F1 race, have put me off much editing today). Once we've got the material rearranged into a neat chronological and thematic sequence, just several sections, the map and pic fixing will be easier, I guess. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't add anything until the dust settles. On a separate note, I've been (slowly) re-writing the Kievan Rus' page and intended to adapt some of it for the Rus' section here. I'm nearing Sviatoslav's conquest, but it may take some time before I get there. In case you or someone else wants to tackle that sooner, I've added a lot of sources over there (and in my sandbox, if you're up for some archaeology). As for the rest, I'm still in mourning from a basketball game four months ago. *sigh* Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great to hear. The Rus' section is one where I must admit rustiness. I studied the old Slavonic epic and chronicle stuff several decades ago, so I'd be happy to just make a few notes and remarks, so you can finesse it, or rewrite it completely. At the moment, I'm just aiming to get the article 'looking nice' and with a coherent narrative. My overall impression is that prior editors just made many lists of stuff, without attribution, and this made for considerable overlap. I don't think we really need a lot of material on cities where Khazars once ruled, or a huge geography section, or sections on Khazars in Arab, Jewish and sources (best worked into the text).Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

OBSERVATION

As a neutral observer of this article for many years I am ashamed to see what kind of POV pushing happened here. This article now do not represent anything beside a political and ideological propaganda aimed to push a view which is not supported by the wast majority of historians. Although POV pushing was evident recently from other side too, the current changes made this article nothing less than disgusting propaganda which has nothing to do with historic realities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.57.153 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I will never again here, and I will not take part in any discussion until independent and neutral inquiry is launched (and this will have to happen on day) to establish facts about both interpretation and even existence of some claims made here. One user created here a Hasabra Zionist propaganda, another one who gained upper hand now, introduced Anti-Zionist and Pro-Palestinian propaganda from marginal sources while the truth and historic facts about Khazars died in between. This is very regrettable for Wikipedia.

Could you be more specific? Your concerns cannot be addressed if you do not explain what specifically you are talking about and if you refuse to discuss them further. We can't read your mind. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny, that; the unsigned fellow above, he's one of the very few - along with Tritomex - to write hasbara as "hasabra". A koinkidenk, obviously. Ha ha ha. MVictorP (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed material

I removed this blob of poorly sourced material, and rewritten the whole section to replace it. If anyone can see stuff here that, once referred to in high quality sources, has been omitted, please add it.

Theories concerning the origins of the Khazars may be divided into those based on Uyghur, Hun, and Transoxiana origins. These theories are described in further detail in the following section. Gurjar-Hunnish origin A Hunnish origin has also been postulated, particularly as an Akatziroi tribe, by such scholars as Omeljan Pritsak and Aleksandr Gadloch. Khazars are mentioned after the fall of the Hunnic Attila Empire in 454.Chronicles of Khazars, Hrono (in Russian)) Since the Hun empire was not ethnically homogeneous, this proposal is not necessarily in conflict with others. Transoxiana origin Dmitri Vasilyev of Astrakhan State University recently hypothesized that the Khazars moved in to the Pontic steppe region only in the late 6th century and originally lived in Transoxiana. According to Vasilyev, Khazar populations remained behind in Transoxiana under Pecheneg and Oghuz suzerainty, possibly remaining in contact with the main body of their people. Diter Ludwig claims that Khazars were driven out of the region by the rising Hephthalites. In September 2008, Vasilyev reported findings in Samosdelka that he thought represented a medieval Jewish capital. Dr. Simon Kraiz, an expert on Eastern European Jewry at the University of Haifa, pointed out that no Khazar writings have been found: "We know a lot about them, and yet we know almost nothing: Jews wrote about them, and so did Russians, Georgians, and Armenians, to name a few. But from the Khazars themselves, we have nearly nothing." Others Some scholars in the former Soviet Union considered the Khazars to be an indigenous people of the North Caucasus, mostly Nakh peoples. They argued that the name khazar comes from the Chechen language, meaning beautiful valley.

Additionally, please de not bring back the "Theories linking Jews to Khazars today" that I just cut - it was a useless (if well-documented) subjective rant which objective was to link those who believe in the "jewish/Khazar" theory to gullible idiots and/or nazis, against the rest of the article's more rational passages, which basically says that few things can be proved either way. There are some concerns on this very page about the section in question, all saying the same thing. What I cut was superfluous content - all the rational arguments against the theory were left intact. I could have objectively cut much more, but limited myself to the obvious feces-pelting. Please keep it civil; This is a scholarly place.MVictorP (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It is not subjective. 2. it is not a rant. 3. it is well documented. 4. such opinions are very common among the pro-Palestinian and antisemitic crowds. 5. it stays.--Galassi (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1: It is subjective in the face of the rest of the article, which is more objective. 2: It is a rant, where the author autorize himself to a subjective analysis of books that would be better left in their own articles, for, you know, intelligent people to decide. 3: So what? I can put a section about strawberries in there, overly sourced and yet that wouldn't make it relevant, or even objective. Sources in this case just denotes obsessiveness of their authors' part. 4: The fact they any, most or all of them hold any opinion do not make these opinions exclusives to them. What you are brandishing is a known fallacy. We are not fooled. 5: I don't think so. Is this an issue for you? In any case, I would like you to develop your argumentation beyond laconicity which have the appearance of finality - It isn't as impressive as you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)MVictorP (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on this article were done based on WP:OR, WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS The well sourced material and contribution of other editors can not be censored based on "So what?" logic. You must have policy based arguments while arguments held by respective scholars are considered WP:RS, while your personal explorations of the objectivity of those authors represent WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem so bent on rules, or rather their interpretation, let me take the chance and ask you: Is "so what" (that was followed by the reasons, BTW) more or less of an argument than "no it is not"? You would be well-advised to revise your rethorics. Now give me some reasons why this section should stay other than "it has lots of sources attached to it", because, finally, that's what we're talking about here, are we not, no matter the thickness of ruling that you attempt to slap on it. Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. It is not upon editors to describe reliable sources as "subjective" or to censor them. The parts you removed, contrary to some other parts (which by WP policy can not stand) is well sourced. You must have scholarly based academic sources to back/refute/remove this section. The current form of this article, although not ideal, is result of numerous previous discussions and the sections you removed are very much related to this article---Tritomex (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you are avoiding a direct discussion. Well then, please familiarize yourself with WP:POV - because that's what it is about, not the questionable interpretations you gave it. And I do have "scholarly based academic sources" to remove the section: They are all over the same article (I could list them to you if you neede help), and tell, without any debate, that the Khazar nobility conversed towards the Jewish faith at some point - what is disputed is the extent of that conversion, and it is disputed because evidences favor neither side to this day. That is objective. The section in litigation here denies any intellectual honesty to one side of the debate. I just can't understand why it wasn't removed before (and it fact it did - it is a de facto disputed section). Finally, Wikipedia isn't set in stone, and its articles can evolve in time. Thank you for your time - but I must warn you, in all rspects, that I intent to undo the undo etc, in time, for the aformentionned reasons, until I consider it on par to Wikipedia's high standards- it's not vandalism: it's restauration, and I intend to do it while abiding by all WP rules.MVictorP (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You dont have any sources, yet you wish to invalidate reliable sources telling the opposite from what you feel. Bernard Lewis, one of the most cited historian, as well as others described this theory. as Antisemitic. Your claim that this theory has equal academic support with "the other side" is simply incorrect. All mainstream historians of Khazar like Bernard Lewis, Moshe Gil or Dunlop considered it as pseudoscientific. Yet even it would be not, that those not mean that you can remove whole sections of long standing material which is well sourced based on your unsourced feelings.--Tritomex (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

From the article: The date of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, and whether it occurred as one event or as a sequence of events over time, is widely disputed. The issues surrounding this controversy are discussed above. The number of Khazars who converted to Judaism is also hotly contested, with historical accounts ranging from claims that only the King and his retainers had embraced Judaism, to the claim that the majority of the lay population had converted. D.M. Dunlop was of the opinion that only the upper class converted. Analysis of recent archaeological grave evidence by such scholars as Kevin A. Brook asserts that the sudden shift in burial customs, with the abandonment of pagan-style burial with grave goods and the adoption of simple shroud burials during the mid-9th century suggests a more widespread conversion.[119] A mainstream scholarly consensus does not yet exist regarding the extent of the conversions.

Like I've wrote, the litigious section was POV and UNDUE. An objective author would have taken the time to look on both sides of the debate. What I did was minimal; The whole article is stuffed with conotative gems - it could be a collegial study on the matter. Expect some additional revisions, soon. Thanks for your time etc. MVictorP (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What you quoted is additional unsourced material and unsourced material has no place in Wikipedia (Beside Dunlop). With unsourced claims you cant justify your POV: Based on what you consider your POV more important than well sourced scholarly work? How can the most important question why anyone would visit this page to be considered UNDUE. Again, you can not remove material based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just because you fell it is POV while you refuse to present any academic evidence to justify your claims. Wikipedia is based on sources and not personal views.--Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest reading; The part I quoted is not only sourced, but it also happens to be written without bias - because sources are one thing, the way one uses them is another. I didn't remove any material based on IDONTLIKEIT; once again, it is based on POV and UNDUE - but if you were unable to read it the first three or four times, I don't expect this one to have more success.70.30.193.227 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)70.30.193.227 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First you are using at least two accounts to edit this page, which is against Wikipedia rules and may lead to block, second the claims you underlined are not sourced. Third Wikipedia is not source for Wikipedia editing. I already asked you to familiarize yourself with WP rules before trying to make such significant changes.--Tritomex (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It was sourced, of course (ref number 119) - and in this case, the author presented both sides of the debates instead of favoring only one side (and one source) and cook a biased POV around it. Contrarly to the litigious section, the quoted part isn't subjective, and respects all sides. I don't appreciate that you use Wikipedia and alienation of opinions as your own political tool, and I am not alone. Please promote Hasbara somewhere else, and while you are at it, study the articles on POV, UNDUE and CONSENSUS, focusing on the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. Also check out the FIVE PILLARS of Wikipedia and, particularly the first two. As for my account, I only got one, but it just happens that I forget to sign here and there (I am working on that). I have no contact whatsoever with the many accounts that appear to have a likewise opinion - but if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it to the admin.MVictorP (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I was absent for few days and I am really surprised how against many Wikipedia rules, this continues removal of long standing already discussed material by recently created account is standing, manly due to different interventions.

Especially this is said if we know that numerous sockpuppets did the same removals and edits on this page. First of all you have no right to call me Hasabra activist and if you have your own problem with antisemitism, Wikipedia is not place for dealing with it. Second the book you referred is not reliable source, because K.A.Brook is not a historian, has no any academic expertise from history. He is a business administrator- without any education from history therfore unreliable for historic claims.. Wikipedia uses quality academic sources and not sources without any academic BG. Even this sources is written without any page or any specific references. This all in contrast with highly respected experts and historians whose material was simply removed based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR, with explanation that this was not in line with unsourced quotes of unreliable book, although even this unreliable book does not claim what MVictorP claims, namely that Khazar theory is not used in modern Antisemitism. You are always free to add your PROPERLY sourced material WITHOUT removing sourced material. Or if you want to remove sourced material, present academic sources backing your claims (namely that Khazar theory is not used in Antisemitism) together with policy based arguments why this material should not be presented as by WP:NPOV in my opinion it has its place here.--Tritomex (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On Kevin Alan Brooks (from his book, "The Jews of Khazaria")

"Kevin Alan Brook is a historian who has researched the Khazars since 1993. He has contributed articles to the Encyclopaedia of Judaism, second edition (Brill, 2005) and The Turks, vol I (Yeni Turkiye, 2002). Since 1995, Brooks has maintained the website of the American Center of Khazar Studies"

And what about Elhaik? You know what? I too can pelt feces - at Lewis, in particular, a biaised zionist supporter, an antiquated researcher and a denier of the Armenian genocide. But I won't. Why? Because it isn't what I, as a WP editor, is supposed to do: It would range from POV to IDONTLIKEIT from my part to do that. I can say that it isn't your role neither: You job, as far as being as WP editor is concerned, is to honestly present the article's subject as it stands, with all significant sides involved. But that isn't what you do - you deny one side credibility by the way of alienation. That, my friend, stinks like the methods used by these CAMERA activists, hence my accusation. I fight CAMERA-like warfare, not out of some hatred for Jews/Israel, but for their bullying, anti-academic methods that laugh in the face of the spirit of true reporting.

The in-article zionist/anti-zionist debate is not desired. If we can simply accept the fact that not all Rhineland Hypothesis supporters are zionists, and that not all Khazarian Hypothesis are anti-zionists, we could get rid of this omnipresent debate as far as the article is concerned. Your request for me to "prove" that the Khazarian Hypothesis isn't used by extremist groups is irrelevant - Isn't Elhaik a Jew/Israeli anyway?

I suggest that not only you learn a bit on Brooks and Elhaik (please don't pretend that you do), but that you write the needed counterpart to the deleted section yourself, using their work. I bet you will come out of it a more informed, credible man.MVictorP (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said K. A.Brook is a business administrator [[2]] without any education from historic field. it was already discussed here and on other places, see archives, and references from his book were changed to reliable sources. Historic claims can not be written in Wikipedia from someone who has no any expertise from history and who is undoubtedly unreliable. Beyond this even the claims you made are referred generally to his novel without specifying any page or any specific references. The claim that Khazar theory is not associated with Antisemitism does not exist even in this book. The current situation where reliable sources are replaced with non existing quotations from unreliable book written by unknown person without any expertise made this page tragically poor, low quality POV pushing and self narration.This situation can not stand. K.A.Brook novel by WP:RS has nothing to do in Wikipedia. There are clear rules what RS is. However, even if there would be reliable sources stating the same as K.A.B, that does not mean that other reliable sources should be disqualified because they are not "in line".--Tritomex (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even the link you gave me confirms Brooks as an historian. Your argumentation can be summerized as IDONTLIKEIT. I never denied that antisemites and the such do use researches from un-associated people, I question its relevance in the article, apart to retro-actively discredit said people by the way of unrequited association.

Oh, and please continue to ignore Elhaik - I assure you that its completely fooling me. MVictorP (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

K.A. Brook is an amateur historian, like me, without formal education and without any academic expertise for HISTORY. If you have any doubts or sources claiming otherwise, you are free to present it. Wikipedia does not use amateur historians or self published articles but relays on academic experts and scholars with formal education from each fields. K.A.B is maybe an expert for business development, certainly not for Khazar history. Certainly I do not ignore Elhaik, there are dozens of genetic studies and academic books from population genetics to which I am very much familiar. I do not mix history and population genetics. This article has to be cleaned from unreliable sources and unsourced claims, and this is true not just for this article.--Tritomex (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough - Brooks is a credible historian, with verifiable referencials and published works. The fact that he has other studies does not impedes on his credibility. He seems to be an expert on the matter of Khazars, and even an authority. Sizeable parts of the article are from his sources.

Besides, one does not need to be formally educated in one specific field to be sourced as "reliable": personal experience or interest are just as relevant as formal education - and maybe more.MVictorP (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Tritomex was trying to push Moshe Gil's recent denial that any Khazars converted to Judaism, a pathetic attempt at historical revisionism. The mere fact that a person has earned a Master's or Ph.D. degree, or has taught classes at the university level, is not enough to establish that person's credibility.

For the record, I enrolled in and successfully passed two classes on Russian history at the undergraduate level. One of those courses related to the entire sweep of Russian history; the other focused to its political history. Tritomex's comments that I'm "without any academic expertise for HISTORY" and "has no any expertise from history and who is undoubtedly unreliable" and that I wrote an "unreliable book written by unknown person without any expertise" are uncalled for.

Also unacceptable are Tritomex's comments "referred generally to his novel" and "K.A.Brook novel by WP:RS has nothing to do in Wikipedia." My book is nonfiction, not a novel. Get it right next time.

If you want to talk about unreliable sources, Wikipedia sometimes is one itself. An example is when the Khazars article currently states, as if it's some kind of established fact: "Medieval Jewish messianism's revival was influenced by a Khazar." and cites the amateur and biased Arthur Koestler on this point, yet this notion has been disproven by the historian Bernard Lewis, as explained on page 192 of "The Jews of Khazaria, Second Edition". Lewis isn't always trustworthy but on this point he is. - KAB, signing in from a shared IP address — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.12.217 (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Other languages

Concerning the question of which other language translations to mention in the opening line, I agree with the editor who has removed Turkish as the only language. Can I propose that we simply use the languages which supply from the most common primary sources? I believe this would be Arabic, Greek, and maybe Latin?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor removing the lone Turkish term was being coherent. The primary languages relating to the Khazars are Arabic, Greek, Latin (by 864), Hebrew and Russian. I fought for their retention in February, against a small, to my mind irrational consensus which basically was opposed to any link of the Khazars with Hebrew tradition, in the face of the contemporary witness of Hasdai ibn Shaprut and others. I'm glad therefore that Andrew brought this up: there is no cogent reason for omitting the contemporary primary source terms of the Khazars, while leaving in a later Turkish term. No wikipedia sister page has found any trouble in using the primary source terminology.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess Hebrew and Russian were not the most important primary contemporary languages anyway, and so dropping them out might be an acceptable compromise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

By the consensus of scholarly sources, Khazar correspondance with foreign countries was conducted in Hebrew (that doesn't exclude other languages). The only Khazar documents we have are in Hebrew. What I ask myself is,(as before) why on earth is this, uniquely for this article, a problem? I am perplexed by even the smallest suspicion that wishing that fact to be registered on wikipedia is somehow 'motivated' by some obscure, non-textual POV pushing. The removal of that really is a standing anomaly to standard procedures. As to Russian, well it would be wrong to talk of Old Slavonic as 'Russian' but if Byantium and the Caliphate languages are allowed, why not the other contemporary slavic source. I mean, cripes, this has never been problematical for articles on the Khazars in Jewish Encyclopediae (cf. the 1972 article), why is it a bone of contention here?Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, in that case I see your point. I did not realize there were Khazar documents in Hebrew.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone with any knowledge of history knows that there are no Khazar documents writen in Hebrew language. It is established fact that Kievian letters were not writen by Khazars (See Erdal) For how long and how much serious editors are letting themselves to be folled in this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.203.69 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't foil with dubious dodges, if you want to avoid the tip of a sabra's épée. Please don't introduce yourself as everyone, if only because the author of Finnegans Wake, or Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker, might sue you posthumously for copyright violation. This page is not written by people without any knowledge of history, but by editors with some knowledge of the subject, beginning with Golb and Pritsak's Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century .Nishidani (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to Musashiaharon

Thanks for the extra material. There's certainly room for it, but my problem is that I'm trying to marshall the basic summary of the best scholarship, on the basis of Golden's comprehensive essay (2007b) on modern scholarship regarding the conversion, to form the basis for the overall narrative. I have another 17 pages to work through before this preliminary draft is done.

• I have tried to organize this chronologically: introducing preciptiously the Kusari/HaLevi text at that point, for an extremely minor thesis, now destabilizes the text
• The sources you use are from the old text (Pritsak and Brook etc.), and have not been controlled. For all we know they may not be accurate, and all sources must be reexamined to avoid errors repeating themselves
• You use Brook, whom I have tried to eliminate, because it is questionable as RS.
• The uniformity of formatting has been disrupted (3,000 kb) for one point about a fringe theory of mid 7th century conversion is excessive
• The details of Bulan, the Joseph letter, Hasdai and what scholarship writes of these sources were to be covered today. The require a distinct section, slightly below the text as I left it last night. The edit thus makes any attempt to pursue this really messy.
• Would you therefore consider doing me the courtesy of allowing me to (having copied your edit) revert it (or obliging me by doing it yourself) so I can complete the scholarly review of this section? It's not that I own the text: to the contrary. But the mess we have needs a thorough review, restructuring and tight source control, and all I ask is for a little patience with each section, until I have done that. Once the conversion section is revised, all editors can then hop in and rewrite it as consensus requires. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I was surprised to see that a lot of my material (from July 26 04:31) was deleted, but your explanation puts me at ease.

For future reference, in case we add the material back in: The Abd al-Jabbar reference was only half-deleted on July 26 04:31, causing the footnote material to appear in the main text. It was later completely removed on July 28 14:21 in the "summarizing" edit. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very kind of you. I must look like a violent editor, the way I have hacked and butchered the article, and I appreciate it when editors can see a little method in my madness. This once was considered for GA or FA review, and has languished every since, deteriorating into a patchwork of snippets, often well intentioned, that (a) lack adequate or proper sourcing (b) ignore the need for a narrative frame that is chronologically coherent. If the team here can allow me a period of grace (I hope not more than another week) I hope I can leave it to other editors in a pre-GA state, with a unified format and cogent narrative frame, so that, if they wish, they can then push its quality up for eventual GA classification.

The details you provide were new to me, and therefore very interesting. The only problems I found, aside from the old format, was (i) excess detail concerning a minor dispute over one small detail (ii) the use of Korobkin to cite Brook, and Pritsak and Omeljan.

With regard to (ii) some editors, on strong grounds, have challenged Brook as not RS. I think his work a very useful compendium, but that the RS status can only be resolved by looking at his sources, and verifying them independently, replacing his work by citation of the eminently scholarly material he synthesizes. As you can see from my edits, almost every position or generalization one might make is subject to scholarly dispute, and my own purpose is to navigate a dicey track through the minefield by seeing where a general consensus among Khazar specialists exists while noting, where possible, disagreements (in the notes). In practical terms, for your own edit re the dating, this means not focusing on just one reading for the date (740) in one source, but finding a way to show several viewpoints by major exponents of scholarly analysis of this crux. Certainly the Abd al-Jabber material can be fitted back, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a RS (Reliable Source)? Read my rebuttal of Tritomex above. Tritomex is an anonymous account nickname and he has not established his credibility in the field of Khazar studies so I think he ought not to set the agenda here. If you're so eager to go "replacing his [my] work" in the citations here, you might want to start more appropriately by removing all references to Koestler and Sand whose books are full of bogus assertions and sometimes outright falsehoods. - KAB, signing in from a shared IP address — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.12.217 (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's appalling that in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=546517888&oldid=546517351 you allowed Tritomex to remove the article's reference to Khazar Judaism in the document Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam based on his prejudice against Khazars being Jews because he thinks Moshe Gil's revisionist theory is right and on his prejudice against my book (which he obviously didn't read), the latter opinion which somehow he eventually convinced you to share. This document is also cited in some works Golden, Dunlop, Pritsak, Koestler, Håkon Stang, Leonid Chekin, and many others though some words are missing in some of the versions like Koestler's and I found the best sources on it to be Stang and Chekin. I didn't invent it or what it says. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expositio_in_Matthaeum_Evangelistam Shame on you too for your attempt in some of your own edits to erase my book from this article. To all who read this: Nishidani and Tritomex have been doing damage to this article by removing valid information from valid sources (including mine, but not only mine) and were plotting to remove still more ("the RS status can only be resolved by ... replacing his [KAB's] work"), yet there is no Wikipedia editors' consensus to remove them, they simply remove them when they feel like it, against the wishes of MVictorP and others. - Kevin Brook, signing in from a shared IP address. Learn more about my contributions to Khazar studies at Khazaria dot com/brookcv.html, reviews and citations of my book by recognized scholars at Khazaria dot com/brook-reviews.html Meanwhile, who are YOU, Nishidani and Tritomex? What are your real names and what publications and education do you have? Which of the three of us had a work cited by J.T. Olsson's new article "Coup d'état, Coronation and Conversion: Some Reflections on the Adoption of Judaism by the Khazar Khaganate" in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society online edition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.12.217 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As my final comment for now, the reason Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam needs to be cited is it's the earliest known reference to Khazar Judaism, written roughly in the year 864, making a mockery of the attempt in the current rendition of the Wikipedia article to extend the range beyond that to "at some point between 740 CE and 920 CE". Tritomex didn't want readers to know about it nor did he like them seeing my book cited again as in his edit he claimed I am "not reliable source. He is not historian and this claim is not supported by historians such as Golden, Dunlop or Moshe GIl." Claim? In fact, Golden and Dunlop both do refer to the same passage in Expositio, but their translations lack a few words for some reason that Chekin or Stang correctly included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.12.217 (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brook thanks for your comments but you should keep in mind that Nishidani, who is a very experienced Wikipedia editor, does not have the level of control that you might think and has to walk a fine line in order to get a stable compromise. No editor of Wikipedia can easily ignore all the concerns of other editors, simply because of the way Wikipedia works, and Tritomex was able to make his point about your publication in terms of clear WP policy. Making Wikipedia is an activity which certainly should be placed into the category of making sausages and making laws: the results are widely useful, but seeing it being made is not always attractive. Let's hope your post gives leads which help get past the concerns raised.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For background, every article I touch which happens to find a reference to Ashkenazi has found stern opposition from Tritomex, wielding revert rights and brandishing policy. To confuse us is to misread the threads. I have made it clear that I think Brook's work is a very useful compendium for editors, but one which, given wikipedia's policies (WP:RS) can be challenged on strong grounds. Since my purpose is to provide a stable text, I have, wherever possible, taken indications in Brooks to the secondary literature and accessed those indications, where possible, directly, for no one can challenge them as RS. As to my qualifications, several editors and administrators know who I am and my academic background and work. Were I misleading you in saying this, they are sufficiently independent to jump at, and note, any trace of presumption or mendacity. I don't need to prove my credentials here, and in any case, while my practice is to apply stringent academic criteria to sourcing, I have to work within the rules set forth for optimal practice by wikipedia, in a conflictual and often irrational work-place. It's no disrespect to you that I have to follow these rules, and if I overlook anything, you will find both myself, and most others, responsive to any objections you might raise, and grateful for any oversights you might remark on. Finally, this page was a standing disaster in terms of what wikipedia requires for minimal quality: no one objected for several years to its state of being a woefully bloated, unorganized, 'wretched patchwork' of freewheeling exposition and obscure sourcing. Some of us have decided it needs review and substantial repair. Such an overall will not compromise whatever is sound in the earlier drafts and I welcome your collaboration in ensuring this will be comprehensive and fair. Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to occasionally replacing a citation of mine on a page at Wikipedia with the original secondary source I cite from, so that you aren't citing tertiary sources all the time. What I object to is you give undue weight to one non-expert person (Tritomex's) false idea that I'm not a reliable source and you're specifically targetting me with the goal of removing me everywhere. You claim now "Tritomex was able to make his point about your publication in terms of clear WP policy." No he didn't. He lied when he called my book a "novel" (it's nonfiction), he lied when he said I didn't have any formal education of any kind in history (I did complete two university courses about Russian history taught by professors James Estey and Glen Camp), he falsely accused my book of being "unreliable", and since he used the phrase "self published" in Talk:Khazars I wonder if it was him who made the edit in the body of the article to lump me in with Boris Altschueler in a phrase about "self-published" books (actually my book is published by the respected traditional academic publisher Rowman and Littlefield which doesn't charge authors fees to get published). I submitted evidence that I do meet the criteria of WP:RS for a reliable secondary/tertiary source. My book was published by a respected academic press, is cited by many professors, graduate students, and Ph.D. candidates in their articles and papers, is reviewed favorably by some professors including but not limited to Golden, and adheres to high standards of accuracy. Sometimes Golden is a fine source to cite though.63.22.13.233 (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not Tritomex's argument. It is policy, see WP:RS. I take no notice of all of the absurd claims Tritomex makes ('a novel'; 'Dinur and Baron say nowhere say', etc.etc.etc.). I made one error, using self-published of your book because I lazily allowed the term to drift over from the correct definition of Boris Altschüler's book, in the same sentence. I myself said your book is a very useful, often comprehensive compendium for material on the Khazars, and you will note that yesterday I cited it, I think twice. Tritomex, or any other POV-pushing disruptive wikipedian, could equally mount a challenge here in terms of WP:COI if you edit the page. As Andrew noted, experienced wikipedian editors have to work under these restraints, anticipating possible challenges and thus try to ensure that what they do write can survive formalist hostilities. Conflict of interest can be got round, happily, by your notifying us when or wherever you think our text does not reflect due weight for arguments,or contains oversights etc. I'm sure any contribution you make in that regard will be taken very seriously (I've already adjusted some parts of the text in response to some criticisms you made yesterday). I'd suggest in any case that you might ask, if you are unfamiliar with this joint, advice on how to ask for an evaluation of your book as a source for this page at WP:RSN. What is decided there becomes executive, and if the majority of editors, after discussion, recognize your book as a reliable source, the problem you complain of wilts. My position is that your book can be certainly used, but preferably as a backup reference to accompany what the contemporary scholarship examines. It cannot stand as an independent authority.

Most of the history of the Khazars is controversial, and requires exacting command of a dozen languages and the historical debates. Each scholar finesses what others argues. Secondly, the Khazar question is plagued by questions of potential forgery (Abraham Firkovich), the arguments of fine scholars in their day who are now superceded, and whose works are often known in snippets from tertiary sources that are themselves old, and often caught up in partisan arguments (Abraham Harkavy); by a huge body of scholarly literature in Slavic languages and Hungarian whose results cannot be reproduced with facility because they reflect national or ideological (Communist) bias, and must be therefore evaluated as they are now evaluated, by scholars like Noonan, Rona, Erdal, Golden. and their many colleagues). Academic historians are told not to trust their colleagues' interpretations and even translations of primary and secondary sources, but to check everything against the original sources. Since a large body of the material you and other non-academic (stricto sensu) researchers cite can be checked, it makes sense to, wherever possible, consult the original source and its reception in the critical literature.

Finally, we are writing a short page that must cover the whole of the history of the Khazars, their origins, history, the theories, the controversies, the aftermath and impact, in a few virtual pages. Your book exceeds 300 pages, and has a huge number of itemized reports of unverified theories, positions, possibilities, etc., (which are fascinating of course). We can't afford to cover anything but the main outlines of all this. No expert, academic or amateur, can look at a wikipedia or any other encyclopedic article without thinking of how much available material is missing. An encyclopedia must be up-to-date, pithy, yet comprehensive. It must avoid being bogged down in minor issues or controversial sideshows. What's been done here so far and what has been elided, has be accomplished with this aim in view - to give a good overall picture of an extremely complex subject. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The following are footnotes that inappropriately cite Arthur Koestler, who isn't a reliable source on this subject.

"At the peak of their empire, the Khazar army is said in Arabic sources to be capable of mustering s many as 100,000 men,[48] and controlled and exacted tribute from thirty different nations and tribes inhabiting the vast territories between the Caucasus, the Aral Sea, the Ural Mountains, and the Ukrainian steppes.[49]"

"48. ^ Koestler 1977, p. 26."

"49. ^ Koestler 1977, p. 18"

The above footnotes should be replaced by Dunlop 1954 (who translated some of the Arabic source documents himself and is one of Koestler's sources on military history) or some other authority. Also, "mustering s many as" needs to be be changed to "mustering as many as".

"H.asdai ibn Shaprut sought information on Khazaria in the hope he might discover 'a place on this earth where harassed Israel can rule itself' and wrote that, were it to prove true that Khazaria had such a king, he would not hesitate to forsake his high office and his family in order to emigrate there.[117]"

"117. ^ Koestler 1977, p. 63"

The above footnote should be replaced by Korobkin 2009 which includes Korobkin's accurate translation of Hasdai's letter. The citations of Korobkin 1998 should also be replaced with their equivalent pages in Korobkin 2009. As I own copies of Koestler, Dunlop, and both editions of Korobkin I can address these matters soon if they don't get handled by somebody else. -Kevin Brook 63.22.15.86 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You risk being hoist by your own petard. Your book is full of direct citations from scholarly materials in many languages which you do not know (most of which, by the way, Koestler did). Your argument against Koestler means your own book is uncitable, since he was, apart from much else, a writer credited with original works of historical scholarship, and thoroughly at home in many of the source languages. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Koestler was weak in Hebrew and Russian (from his brief time living in the land of Israel and Soviet Union respectively) and incapable of dealing with important Khazar studies source document languages like Arabic, Persian, old Turkic languages, Georgian, Armenian, or Chinese. I don't know to what extent Koestler knew Latin if at all but schoolchildren typically learned it in his day. According to his acknowledgements he had helpers who translated from Hebrew and Russian for him. He was fluent in Hungarian, German, and English. Few source documents in Khazar studies are written in those languages so your claim Koestler "thoroughly at home in many of the source languages" is incredible. Meanwhile, Pritsak, whom on 27 July 2013 you questioned as an example of "old text" that has "not been controlled" and "may not be accurate", easily worked in over two dozen languages and was fluent in 12 languages per http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/06/03/omeljan_pritsak_noted_scholar_of_ukraine_is_dead_at_87/ But this isn't a contest to see who knows the most languages. Koestler spent only 13 months researching the Khazars from July 1973 to August 1974 and is never called an expert on Khazars; furthermore, his book is 39 years out of date and he isn't alive to update it and never expressed interest in doing so nor was his book an example of "original" research. By contrast, I've spent 20 years researching the Khazars and I'm routinely cited by scholars in neutral or positive ways and sometimes considered an expert by them. -Kevin Brook 63.22.16.8 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources for this book and modern Khazar studies, not source languages. On that equivocation you base your whole argument, ignoring my meaning (just as I will ignore you using 'land of Israel', an anachronistic and partisan absurdity, for Mandatory Palestine). Koestler spoke Russian by his own testimony ungrammatically, but fluently. His biographer Michael Scammell is an impartial and informed judge, being also a scholar of Slavic languages: Koestler had a 'decent knowledge' of Russian. If you call three years in Palestine 'brief' you have a different notion of time than I do. He, like most Palestinian Jews at the time, was not comfortable in Hebrew but had a fair working knowledge of the modern spoken tongue. As any linguist knows, reading is a pushover, speaking grammatically not so. He acted as a translator for foreign companions during his Russian sojourn. In writing from Russian and Hebrew sources he of course availed himself of competent translators.

He was able therefore to work with the secondary source literature of his day, English, German, French and Russian and, surprising you should ignore this, Hungarian, which had a very distinguished genealogy of powerful scholars in oriental studies, and an abiding interest in national origins and steppe connections. Koestler was not an expert on the Khazars, he was an informed amateur, like yourself. The only difference is: Koestler had a direct reading knowledge of the major languages of contemporary scholarship, which you do not have, and therefore must cite indirectly. An expert is someone who makes original contributions to any field. Your book summarizes a large number of articles (it often for example reproduces errors made by scholars, as when it handles anything reported from Chinese). It is a very useful general reader's guide to a complex subject. What I said still holds: you frequently cite sources you have not read, because they are in languages you do not know. This is what makes it problematical as an autonomous source for a complex technical wiki article. It's problematical enough trying to cope with the extraordinary contrariness of secondary sources without adding to them. Let me give some examples:

(a) Were I or anyone else here to cite you on the Kievan letter, where you say the runiform text reads (h)oqurüm, which in the Khazarian language means "I have read (it)' (p.103), that would be problematical since Erdal 2007:p.98 (from memory) challenges, as have others, the idea this is Khazarian. It looks like Bulgar-Chuvash to him).

(b) If we were to cite p.5 and its replication of an proximity between two ostensible Chinese words 'Ko-sa' and 'K'osa', that would be problematical because your source is wrong. The transcription of the second is misleading, and to make minimal sense would have to be written K'o-sa. So too, writing 'some early Chinese writers knew the Khazars under the names K'o(-)sa t'u-chüeh,' may be a slip from a stumbled source. I think only one Chinese travelogue (the 經行記) by Du Huan, uses the form 可薩突厥, which your words appear to transcribe. It may be a hapax legomenon, but I'll try to check further on this, since I am relying on memories of notes I made several months ago, but lost or mislaid.

One could multiply examples, and show that your objections to Koestler are objections anyone might make to your own work (even though it is a far more comprehensive and even-handed (indeed commendable) introduction than Koestler's book, which had different aims). Your dismissal of him is ungenerous, and your underestimation of what a Middle European education and context allowed writers and thinkers of his calibre to do with the available scholarship -witness his The Sleepwalkers - still a readable classic in its field - rather surprising. You aren't 'competing' with him, sir. They are two different kinds of book, and neither is wholly satisfactory in terms of wikipedia sourcing protocols, while both can be used, with circumspect discretion. That's my view. But I suggest you take it to WP:RSN, where a wider disinterested input can be obtained on the issue.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I got you to admit "both [Brook and Koestler] can be used, with circumspect discretion." The point of my confronting you was to force you to consider why at one point you felt you wanted to remove every trace of my name from the article and footnotes while keeping citations from the nearly universally discredited The Thirteenth Tribe by Koestler (and, I guess, even keeping Sand in this article?). Thank you for partially backing down from your statement dated 27 July 2013 "Brook, whom I have tried to eliminate" and yours dated 29 July 2013 "replacing his work". If you believe Koestler should remain cited for facts related to military history, so be it.

You wrote, "An expert is someone who makes original contributions to any field." I'm not one who merely summarizes the works of others. Several of my ideas/theories are innovative, and don't forget my original contribution to the genetic research of a key question related to the ancestry of the Karaites of Europe - DNA samples I commissioned and analyzed. The much enhanced and expanded results will be forthcoming soon - and citable in multiple Wikipedia articles, at least one of which currently cites the incomplete results I reported in my book in 2006 - as I have recently found time and motivation to return to that work.

As for your assertion "Koestler had a direct reading knowledge of the major languages of contemporary scholarship, which you do not have", I was replying in the context of your previous statement "Academic historians are told not to trust their colleagues' interpretations and even translations of primary and secondary sources, but to check everything against the original sources." When I read your argument about Koestler being "thoroughly at home in many of the source languages" I was thinking that didn't apply to those primary (original) sources.

I'm easily able to read articles and books about the Khazars that appeared in French, English, and Spanish. Spanish ones are few and far between but there were some in French that mattered, and most important articles on Khazars these days are either written in English originally or summarized by the publisher in English adjacent to the Russian text. Although I don't list German in my CV (maybe I should), I can understand many German words (not limited to its cognates with English) and once I found a section of a work I want to more completely understand, dictionaries and automatic translators work wonders. The latter tool, in particular, has significantly decreased my dependence in the last century on native speakers of Russian, Polish, and so forth. But when you claim I "frequently cite sources you have not read" it actually wasn't very often that that happened, because I often had a friend in the room with me dictating his real-time translation of a non-English source in front of him, or emailing me a translation of paragraph(s). Now I can run an entire document through an automatic translator, hone in on parts that matter, then if necessary get those parts more precisely translated through other means.

All I did on the Chinese terms "Ko-sa" and "K’osa" was to say "Dunlop’s argument is largely based on the close resemblance". And you say this resemblance is "problematical because your source is wrong". Right, but didn't you see this phrase in the very next sentence in my book, "Peter Golden disagreed with Dunlop’s suggestion"? I didn't mislead readers into thinking Dunlop was unequivocably right.

Nobody asked you to cite me to discuss the Kievan Letter disputes like "(h)oqurüm" or whether the letter was actually signed by Khazars and, obviously, I couldn't time-travel from to 2007 so I could read Erdal 2007 when I was finishing the second edition of my book in 2006. "One could multiply examples", you say. Yes, but I never urged you to cite me all over the article, and as King Bulan said, "Why should we multiply words?" This discussion has run its course. -Kevin Brook 65.55.67.218 (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to be antagonistic nor to take this personally. As anothe editor said, wikipedia has rules even scholars are unfamiliar with, and they are to be applied. It has been made clear several times that your work has merits,(as Koestler's) but both are problematical as wiki sources. I am steadily replacing as much of the sourcing as possible with direct citations of the work of academic specialists, which neither you nor Koestler are or were. What we have is placeholder citations. I am not a rigourist, but amenable to intelligent agreements that have the good of the article as the primary aim. You have been challenged as reliable on solid grounds. My eliminations are not a 'liquidation' of your presence here, but a preventive move against future challenges in an article with a sorry history of poor editing by POV pushers.

To repeat. It is pointless challenging Koestler's unreliability by attacking his linguistic abilities, while admitting your own readings of the foreign-language secondary sources is hampered by even more severe constraints.

According to his acknowledgements he had helpers who translated from Hebrew and Russian for him. He was fluent in Hungarian, German, and English. Few source documents in Khazar studies are written in those languages

I'm easily able to read articles and books about the Khazars that appeared in French,(English), and Spanish. Spanish ones are few and far between but there were some in French that mattered

I.e. you snipe at Koestler's command of German, Russian, Hungarian etc. which contain extensive secondary sources, and mock his use of assistants for translation only then to assert your own familiarity with some foreign languages which have little material on the Khazars, while assuring us that friends and machine translation have overcome your own problems with such secondary source language material.

Your point re not having had the chance to read Erdal 2007 before your second edition is beside the point. Pritsak's 1982 position was subject to extensive challenge and modification by Ligeti, Vékony, Erdal and others long before 2007. I cited this (one of numerous instances) simply to show the difficulties an editor like myself has in using general works that have a self-assurance the scholarship on intricate questions lacks. Since a WP:COI problem also exists, I have repeated that editors here will be happy to examine any problems you raise. I've accommodated some, changing on or two Koestler refs with surer sources, while introducing some placeholder refs to your own book. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)