Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:47, 18 July 2013

Khazaria.com was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Khazars. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Mid‑importance Khazars is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Norse history and culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Khazars was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 10, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 24, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Joey Kurtzman (November 16 2006). "Wiki Wars". Jewcy. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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.

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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 Misplaced Pages (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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules and may lead to block, second the claims you underlined are not sourced. Third Misplaced Pages is not source for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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.. Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

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

Overreliance on Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition About the "Ashkenazi-Khazar" Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quote discussed bellow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rephrased proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

1. Chronicles of Khazars, Hrono Template:Ru icon
2. "Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital". FoxNews. Associated Press. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2008-10-28.
3. "Chechens and Jews", accessed 23 December 2010
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lewis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." Harkabi, Yehoshafat, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Fein, Helen. The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 3-11-010170-X, p. 424.
6. "Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." Harkabi, Yehoshafat, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Fein, Helen. The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 3-11-010170-X, p. 424.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Mid-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
• Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Norse history and culture articles
• High-importance Norse history and culture articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press