Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 11 February 2013 (→WP:ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Remove irrelevant material.

This text should be removed as it is not relevant to this article's subject. In 1971 John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha) also took up this theme, insisting that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews. According to Benny Morris: Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners. the claim that the Palestinians are related to Judeans is not the same as the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are related to the Khazars. Unless Glubb makes the latter claim then this is not relevant. I will therefore remove it.Do not collect (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. As part of that argument Glubb specifically wrote that Russian Jews "have considerably less Middle Eastern blood, consisting of largely pagan Slav proselytes or of Khazar Turks". It's all there in Morris' book. Jayjg 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

if you want to leave this material in, then add in a quote that is relevant. Glubb's argument about the Khazar hypothesis, (which is so well,known, it does not need a source, but I will provide one) is relevant. Morris's quote as it stands is not relevant. It is OR to state that the Khazar hypothesis is related to DNA studies that show that Palestinians are the descedants of Judeans. It should not stay as it is.Do not collect (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please Do not collect, do not remove reliable sources.Benny Morris is highly respected historian and his view has importance in this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Tritomex. Please note that OR material needs to be removed. Your claims about Benny Morris are not relevant here. You need to find a quote that relates to Khazars not Palestinians. There are plenty of DNA studies that show how closely related Jews and Palestinians are, but that says nothing about the Khazars. Regards.Do not collect (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This was not my claim, I think you do not understand what original research is. WP:OR can only relate to us, Misplaced Pages editors, not to Benny Morris---Tritomex (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

i think you do not understand OR. It is OR to use a Benny Morris quote on a claim made about Palestinians in an article about Khazars. You need a quote from Morris, that relates to the Khazar hypothesis. You cannot link a quote about Palestinians being closely relate to Jews to then indicate that anyone who believes in the Khazar theory is also claiming that Palestinians have a right to a homeland. You need a quote from Morris that directly relates to the Khazar theory. Otherwise you are perforiming OR on what Morris actually said.Do not collect (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In this quote Morris addresses the so called Khazar theory. Glubb specifically refer to Khazars or Khazar Turks as he states. Its not taboo, that the so called Khazar theory is excessively used in the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor there are restrictions for academic historians to state this fact.--Tritomex (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it cuts both ways:

Not unexpectedly, this topic is highly charged, since a primary Khazar origin for the Ashkenazic Jews would invalidate the Zionist thesis that the contemporary Jews are largely of Palestinian Semitic origin and are more deserving of Palestine than the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. Paul Wexler, 'What Yiddish Teaches Us about the Role of the Khazars in the Ashkenazic Ethnogenesis,' in Khazarskiy al'manax 2, Kharkiv, 2004, pp 117-135, p.117. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that explains why so many of the people who deny the legitimacy of Israel are so hell-bent on trying to prove the "Khazar origin" hypothesis for Ashkenasi Jews. 89.204.138.240 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any necessary logical connection between this theory, and the legitimacy of Israel? It is however true that it disagrees with the theories of some people. But I think many Jews have promoted and believed in such theories, and so it is not just people with a sort of "racial" position on Zionism who are interested in it. In short: it should be possible for WP to handle this topic without all this side-issue stuff.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

wikt:𐰏𐰀𐰔𐰀𐰺

Hello all. The present article begins "The Khazars (Old Turkic: Template:IPA-tr)…". Is the Old Turkic word (𐰏𐰀𐰔𐰀𐰺) attested, or did someone reconstruct it from an assumed descendant, such as the Modern Turkish Hazar? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The alleged Old Turkish was put there, without source or edit summary, by this edit. As it was done by an IP there's no user talk page on which to query it. If you doubt it at all it would be correct wikipedia policy to flag it with {{fact}} or just delete it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a mechanical transcription of modern Turkish into the Göktürk script. The earliest Turkish form reads Qasar (Terh inscription)Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless some clarification takes place in a day or two, feel free to remove it as a probable WP:OR infraction, rather than posting a {{fact}}. Samuel is too generous. One shouldn't edit in anything unless one has a good source directly at hand. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Khan's blog is inadmissible

The blog of Razib Khan is being used to present criticism of Elhaik's paper. One problem is that some of the criticisms are historical rather than genetic, yet Khan is not qualified as a historian. But a much more severe, indeed fatal, problem is that Khan's blog was published four months before Elhaik's paper and does not refer to it at all. So it cannot be a criticism of it. It refers only to an earlier preprint that differs in more than 250 places from the published paper (kindly compared for me by Adobe Acrobat Professional). It might be that Khan would make the same criticisms of the published paper, but we don't know that. As well as changing some claims, Elhaik gave different or more careful explanations for some claims that stayed the same, and it would be a clear case of original research to decide that Khan would have the same opinion after reading the new text. Zero 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is indeed one concern. The counter argument is that in reality the article's substance is very close.
• (This was by the way all discussed before on Genetic studies on Jews.)
• Another concern is that we are here citing a blog against peer reviewed articles. WP:SPS and other policy pages have fairly clear guidelines about this sort of thing. Is just being a geneticist with a well known personal blog enough to be used in an article like this? One of the major concern is obviously that Razib Khan (as far as I know) is not actually a widely cited or published author in this particular area. But that is kind of what policy demands of us when we try to cite a blog in a case like this.
• Also keep in mind that the blog is not edit or fact checked by anyone other than Razib Khan. It is a personal blog, so it is also difficult to say that Razib Khan is like a science journalist. That is another issue relevant to WP policy.
• Has this ever been taken to WP:RSN before?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• His blog is not his personal page is part of the Discover (magazine) so it constute WP:NEWSBLOG yes it should be attributed but I think its OK to use it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If the blog is used at all, it must be presented as a criticism of a preliminary draft of Elhaik's paper. It is simply a falsehood to present it as a criticism of Elhaik's published paper. Zero 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Khan article is perfectly admissible. A lot of news sites use blog format now.--Galassi (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for entirely ignoring the argument. Zero 02:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Shrike and Galassi, please explain why you think the blog is subjected to editorial oversight or fact checking? I know the blog quite well as it is happens, and according to me it is not. The fact checking is all by the writer, so for Misplaced Pages policy that makes it a personal blog, and not a kind of news media. What am I missing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The criticism of pre print-published article mentioned here relates to three specific claims which did not change in published paper. Namely the assumption that Armenians and Georgians are Proto-Khazars, the assumption that Palestinians are Proto Judeans and the claim that Druze are "non Semitic" immigrants to Levant. Elhaik historic framework was also criticized, yet as this section underwent change, this particular criticism was not included. Razib Khan work is widely covered by newspapers, scientific journals, magazines and other medias. I do not think that Zero0000 proposal is unacceptable, as it is balanced. However the AFP article and other secondary sources also relates to Elhaik pre published papers and concerning Discover (magazine) it is WP:NEWSBLOG, while the author is a geneticist.--Tritomex (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

All references that only refer to the preprint version should be assessed for relevance and either removed or cited properly. Your claim "which did not change in published paper" is original research. In fact it doesn't matter if it didn't change since the description and explanation changed. Zero 07:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG says use with caution, and it also refers us to read WP:SPS, but here we are talking about a controversial and very specialist subject, so the policy is clearly not favouring use of this blog. Tritomex please give evidence that Razib Khan has been published concerning this specialist subject area by any peer reviewed publicaiton, or indeed any fact checking publisher other than himself, or that he is widely cited in peer reviewed specialist literature. That is what is relevant here as I understand it. Again, just to remind everyone, if there is doubt about how to interpret policy we can take these questions to WP:RSN?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is precisely because human genetics is such a fast-moving field that "genome bloggers" like Razib Khan are receiving so much attention from specialists. That was the point of the article in Nature magazine that coined the "genome bloggers" phrase: peer-reviewed journals can't keep up with the pace of discoveries so experts are reading the genome bloggers and taking them seriously. That said, I would agree that it's difficult to fit the critiques by Khan and Dienekes into this Article. It's an argument for carving out this entire "Khazar contribution to Ashkenasi genomes" discussion from this Article and putting it into a dedicated Article. Then there would be room for including the genome bloggers' response to the Elhaik paper, while properly giving greater weight to the peer-reviewed paper than to the (reputable but not peer-reviewed) genome bloggers. (And even if all mention of the genome bloggers' criticism is kept out, readers need to know that the genetics of human descent are a field that is very much in flux, particularly due to the recent innovations concerning analysis of ancient DNA from human remains. It's a challenge to express this situation of flux adequately in a short sentence, but perhaps not impossible.) --79.243.83.85 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In particular, has Razib Khan demonstrated any expertise, or have any qualifications, regarding the history of Khazars, Judeans, Druze, Armenians or Georgians? If this is a column by an expert on that expert's field of expertise, I wouldn't care about "editorial oversight". But is it? Zero 07:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think he displays lots of expertise, but I think you are asking the wrong question. Misplaced Pages is not for displaying expertise of ourselves or the individual people we know of personally (there are heaps of ways to do that on the internet), but for summarising what has been published by publications with a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Normally this means the source will have editors checking it. We can make exceptions for self-published publications which have a strong reputation amongst experts, but can we prove this concerning this blog? The standard approach is: Is the blog cited by peer reviewed articles? Is Khan a peer reviewed author in this field? (Not does he display expertise?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, Khan was fairly thrashed out at the talk page of Talk:Genetic studies on Jews, and elsewhere I think. He's unacceptable to most, Galassi is editwarring in apparent indifference to the problems, and is now warned that it is not good faith editing to keep reverting back in what a majority of editors over wiki regard as dubious regarding our inclusion-criteria, which, esp. in science or controversial topics, requires a high bar.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very important to point out that Elhaik do not have any qualifications, regarding the history of Khazars, Judeans, Druze, Armenians or Georgians as well. Also his claims goes against all known data from both Jewish history and genetics. Elhaik publications are not covered by any academic book from this field, nor is his work cited, commented or approved by any population geneticists. Prior to this article he was not involved in human population genetics, as far as I know. Concerning Rhazib Khan he works for prestigious British newspaper The Guardian, His work in biological sciences has been cited in many books like those of Thom Hartmann by scientists Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" other authors like Tim Tyler "Memetics: Memes and the Science of Cultural Evolution" Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think By Elaine Howard Ecklund.. His work has been covered by The New York Times and other prestigious medias. --Tritomex (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll imitate the first line to show how silly it is

'It is very important to point out that Ostrer, Behar, Atzmon (followed by the names of 23 geneticists) do not have any qualifications, regarding the history of Khazars, Judeans, Druze, Armenians. Lebanese, Cypriots, Syrians, Georgians, Moroccans, Sephardis, Ashkenazi, Poles, Russians, Italians etc.etc. etc. as well.

Tritomex. What you are doing is utterly confusing, when not irrelevant. Your knowledge of both theories of Jewish history, and that history, is zilch, to gather from the Ashkenazi page edits. You keep violating the elementary protocols (editors must not use their personal beliefs, even as professionals, to evaluate RS and dismiss them when they are reliably published in peer reviewed journals. If Khan wants his views heard on wikipedia, let him review the final version of Elhaik's paper, and get it reliably published, in something like Genome Biology and Evolution, where Danielle Venton's review of the same was published (and thus meets wikipedia criteria).Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex the qualifications needed are defined by policy. Elhaik has gotten his article through peer review into a relevant scientific journal in this field. Has Razib Khan done this? I keep asking but I never get an answer. It is a great blog, but is it checked by editors or just written by him personally? Is the blog ever cited in the best sources for this field? What are the answers to these questions? By the way I like the blog and follow it and I tend to agree with a lot of his issues here, but I do not edit Misplaced Pages based on my personal conclusions about complex subjects, or the personal conclusions of individuals I just happen to agree with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, do you really think this discussion finished on the other article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew. Tritomex is a passionate editor, and useful on many things, but he consistently engages in arguments whose major premises all fall outside the restrictions imposed on wiki editors. These arguments find support, independently, by a number of editors who just look on, like what he is doing, and show a willingness to argue, quibble but especially revert in his favour. A huge amount of time could be saved if the elementary wisdom regardling policies like RS were absorbed. I read a large number of things that inform my understanding of many articles, (I've often wondered about a possible contamination of Turkic qasar with the name of Gesar in the Epic of King Gesar, for example. I wrote the article, and there is a link between the two made by Mehmet Tütüncü, Türk-Yahudi Buluşmaları,(Turkish-Jewish Encounters) 2001 SOTA p.34) but I refrain from using any information that does not meet strong standards. If I slip up, and am notified I reffed a blog, I do not persist, but withdraw that source, as all good editors should do. To persist with borderline or blog sources suggests to me only that an editor likes that info, and wants to push a point of view into an article. This place is not a forum for endless to-and-froing over the obvious. The issues are difficult enough without the attrition of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Nothing personal regarding Tritomex, but his good will is vitiated by a failure to understand the most elementary points of practical editing on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For one thing it would be a help if Tritomex rid his mind of the suspicion that editors who cite Wexler, Jits van Straten, Elhaik or others concerning the Khazars, are revealing their personal support for the Khazar origin of Jews. He thinks this is my angle. In my own original copy of Koestler's book (1976) I have clipped the correspondence between Leon Wieseltier and Henry H.Huttenbach from the New York Review of Books (Dec 9,1976 p.62), which persuaded me almost four decades back that on this, as on The Case of the Midwife Toad and The Roots of Coincidence, Koestler had a bad habit of letting fascinating byways of legitimate curiosity hijack reason. I think here we are just adding on recent developments from RS, and who the devil cares whether these turn out to be true or not.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As an academic, I find the discussion here confusing. We have a scientific study published in an academic journal with a solid reputation. And we have a blog. I won't even comment on whether the study is right or not, because that's not relevant. What's relevant is that it is a study by experts, their findings have been peer-reviewed, and deemed acceptable for publication in an academic journal. That is not the case with a blog, and there is no reason why we should the blog at all. If the academic study is faulty, those faults will be addressed in future studies, or academic articles, and we should of course include them when/if they appear. In the meantime, I suggest we keep the study (of course) but remove the blog. I'm trying to assume good faith, but must admit to having difficulties believing that anyone truly believs that a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed academic article is comparable to the writings in a blog. And the whole discussion about who Razib Khan is appear redundant, as it's not about the person. If Razib Khan manages to publish an academic article and Elhaik write a blog piece about it, then the same goes, and we should include Khan but not Elhaik. In this case, we should include Elhaik and not Khan.Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting Glassi. Zero, Andrew Lancaster, Nishidani,Jeppiz, i.e. 4, have all argued in extenso. The support for Khan is sustained by arguments from Tritomex. Shrike did not argue. Nor did Galassi. They lent support, and the latter just edit warred. A majority opposes the inclusion, with solid policy based arguments. Further reverting to include a dubious and outdated blog constitutes defiance of the consensus, and is reportable.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nishidani above. As I've already noted, I personally tend to agree more with the blogger than with the scientist in this case, and I'm able to identify weaknesses in the study myself. That does not matter. Not one bit. What matters is that the study is a scientific and peer-reviewed study published in a respected academic journal. A blog is a blog, not peer-reviewed in any way. While I have doubts about the study, I care much more about rigor and quality control. We cannot start discrediting peer-reviewed research by referring to blogs, no matter how we might feel personally. I've read the discussion in detail, and I haven't found one factual argument in favor of including the blog. That being the case, I agree with Nishidani that those trying to impose the blog start to look more and more like disruptive editors, and should probably be dealt with as such. Once again, that does not mean I believe in all the study says, but it does mean that I care about the quality of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Galassi is quite obviously edit warring. S/he is repeatedly edit warring, inserting the same segment despite the consensus on the talk page, and shows no interest in taking part in the discussion. This was already the third or fourth time just today, it looks more and more like plain vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I just requested full protection on this article. Involved parties should be discussing, not warring. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, all those who oppose including a blog are actively discussing. None of those opposing the blog are.Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not an edit war, but a content dispute. I see that a few editors actively promote the Turkic origin of Ashkenazic Jews theory. It has long been discredited, and should be ideally deleted entirely, according to WP:MARGINAL.--17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

When you remove the same text three times without discussing, it looks very much like edit warring and very little like a 'content dispute'. Unfortunately, your comment above does nothing to dispel that feeling. You argue that your version is justified because it is the WP:TRUTH. We don't care about the truth, we care about sourced facts. On one side, we have a scientific study that has been peer-reviewed and published in a leading academic journal. On the other side, we have a personal blog. That is the question we're discussing, not whether "Ashkenazic Jews" are Turkic or not. As I already said, I agree with you on that question - but that question is irrelevant as we're not here for the WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that a few editors actively promote the Turkic origin of Ashkenazic Jews theory.

If you see any such thing, I suggest you do a check up with an opthalmologist. What you see is an inference based on the fact that I (and not Zero, Lancaster, or Jeppiz) have attempted over several pages to note that a significant multidisciplinary group of scholars has recently re-examined the Khazar/Jewish theory which, indeed, was for some decades dismissed. They have, in linguistics (Paul Wexler), genetics (Elhaik) and historiography (Shlomo Sand), to name a few, argued that there may be some substance to the theory. As editors, we are obliged to register this minority view, without infringing WP:Undue in order to achieve WP:NPOV. What has happened over several articles is consistent tendentious argumentation or edit-warring or both, either to elide these sources by spurious challenges to their WP:RS value, or to deny that this is anything but WP:fringe them by using cheap sources (blogs and newspaper reports) that are critical of the very idea itself. I see problems in all of these approaches, but I'm editing here not as an academic, but as a wikipedian subject to strict rules. You cannot suppress views entertained by a minority, especially when that minority happens to consist of promising young, or distinguished scholars (Wexler) whose views are treated with respect by their peers in the field. And, ps., Wexler is not talking of Turkish origins, but of Iranian origins of a core group.If anything, such editors should read articles like Nurit Kirsh's Population Genetics.pdf or Sand's book to remind themselves how dangerously prone to ideological inflections this particular position has been historically.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most in the text above. As I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe that the Ashkenazim are Khazars, I find Galassi's claim bordering on the ridiculous. I hate getting personal, but when Galassi both claim to know the WP:TRUTH and claim to know the motives of all who don't agree with him, it tells me that his interest might not coincide with making this a good, NPOV article. I believe that most evidence talks against the Khazars being the main part of the Ashkenazim, and I believe the article should reflect that. What is more, I believe there is so much good evidence in support of that theory that I don't understand why some people want to undermine it. Because that is what some editors are doing. In their eagerness to include anything supporting their theory and exclude anything not in line with their theory, the "anti-khazar" editors are not only making this article worse, they are also undermining their own case. Let's include good, proper academic sources. Oh, and the only part I don't agree with in Nishidani's post is the part about Wexler being a distinguished scholar treated with respect by his peers. As one of his peers, I would his views are treated as a fringe theory.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(off-topic. But I was thinking of Neil Jacobs's Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2005 (see the acknowledgement notice) and pp.6-15, etc. At least there, Jacobs, a peer, does not treat Wexler's scholarship here as fringe. To the contrary, he indeed openly expresss deep debts to him. His theory on this is one thing: his scholarship another. Rather like Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin's reconstruction of Dené–Caucasian or Roy Andrew Miller on the Proto-Japanese sound system, both of whom got many hostile reviews, but weren't fringe figures.)Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting academic paper

I got access to this If anyone interested to use in the article I can send a full text by mail.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. It's a very poor article that does not adhere to academic principles, and the journal in which it was published does not have a good reputation. That is not to say we could not include it (of course we could if we want to) but I'm unsure it adds anything not already in the text, and already better sourced.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly beg to differ. Revue des Études Juives is RS, and not one doubts Moshe Gil's qualifications as an Israeli éminence grise in the field of Arabic and Jewish scholarship on the ME. Gil wrote that aged 90 of course and certainly has a defined and partial position, clear from his History of Palestine. But these are not considerations which should influence us. We are not dealing with 'facts' but with interpretations, and the only thing that matters is determining which view has the scholarly consensus in order to calibrate this material (I think it is a minority view, but that needs checking) according to WP:Weight. Compare Peter Golden's 'The Conversion of the Jews to Judaism,' which takes this as uncontroversial. Golden has a far broader grasp of comparative and contemporary scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. When I said the journal was bad, I'm afraid I was speaking as an academic, not as a Wikipedian. I meant 'bad' in the sense that it is not a particularly respected journal in academia, but you are of course right that it is RS. But as I said, I don't object to including the article, I just did not find anything in it (when I read it some time ago) that is not already covered in this article.Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this article above without naming it (my immoderate "crappy" comment). I was surprised to see an article from Moshe Gil at all, who is in his 90s. It isn't a great article, alas, he writes as if the entire body of knowledge of the Khazars derives from a few Arabic writers, which is not true, and he dismisses a key bit of evidence with a wild conjecture. But it satisfies WP:RS for sure. Zero 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The following section logically follows the above, but was misplaced in the new section created byLaszlo Panaflex. I have relocated it above that section

Please move the mis-placed comment and resulting discussion to where it was intended. I created a new section to deal with a completely different issue, and now it has been overwhelmed by the misplaced discussion from above. Meanwhile, the discussion of the Judaism issue within those comments underscores the need for that topic to have its own page, rather than being dealt with on the general topic page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am always willing to discuss. However, those of us who oppose including a blog to contradict a peer-reviewed academic study (Nishidani, Zero, Andrew Lancaster, Jeppiz) have already discussed extensively in the last days. We have outlined in great detail why some personal reflections on a blog are in no way comparable to what experienced researchers have found, presented to their peers, and published in a leading academic journal. Unfortunately, those opposing our opinion have been eager to revert our edits but very reluctant to discuss. All we have had in the last days from their side is a statement by Galassi that we should not include the academic peer-reviewed study because it is wrong. That is not a valid argument. Experts in the field have evaluated the study and found it to meet the scientific requirements to be published, so whether Misplaced Pages editors think it's right or wrong is irrelevant. It would be wrong if we removed all other studies and claimed that this latest study supersedes all others. None of us have even proposed that, much less edited in such a way. What we are saying is that in order to create a good, NPOV article, we need to include academic sources that reflect different viewpoints. We are not interested in what individual bloggers might have to say about studies that already have been reviewed by its peers, but we should of course include any future study that might contradict any of the present studies.

This being the case, I am somewhat surprised by the moderators telling us to "discuss". We are already discussing, but a relevant discussion needs two parties. When one party is only reverting and not discussing, it ceases to be a content dispute and enters into disruptive editing.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Was this comment intended for the section above? I was referring to a discussion of the reorganization I proposed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It was a reference both to the comment by Binksternet yesterday and the continued lack of any argument from those favoring the blog. I intended to place it at the end of that section, obviously I misplaced it. Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere it is written that only peer-reviewed articles are WP:RS, nor that a criticism of peer-reviewed articles have to come solely from peer-reviewed articles. Rhazib Khan is not "individual bloger" but an academic expert for population genetics. It is also not academic attitude to disregard Moshe Gil, one of the most respected and most cited historian of Jewish people and Middle East, as it is also not acceptable to depict others who do not share your opinion as "disruptive editors engaged in edit warring" Despite being peer-reviewed article, it is not original research to point out to clear and obvious mistakes in Elhaik papers, from the assumption that Ashkenazi Jews are 90% of overall Jewish people, to the depicting of native Middle Eastern Druze populations as Turkic immigrants to the Levant. This are questions which have to be dealt with. As population genetics beside Khan refused even to comment on Elhaik work, criticism came from political experts and scientific journalists.

Concerning the fringe Khazar Theory, this theory, which has been refuted by all genetic studies, academic books from population genetics, and all highly respected historians of Jewish people like Dunlop, Ben Sasson, Moshe Gil, Bernard Lewis, Anita Shapira, Israel Barthal just to name some. This theory, has equal purpose and historic validity like the theory that Palestinian people are late immigrants, who immigrated to Palestine from 19th century onward. As in the case of Khazar theory, which has its very few academic supporters (Shlomo Sand and Peter Wexler ) despite being rebuked and considered marginal, even fringe by almost all experts it is regularly used pushed, resurrected in many Misplaced Pages articles, and presented as valid historic parallel to the mainstream view. Concerning the theory that most of Palestinians are modern descendants of late immigrants, this marginal theory has also its academic supporters from Rivka Sphak Lissak, an academic historian, in smaller degree to demographer Uziel Schmelz and of course Joan Peters and her "From Time Immemorial" which is the Palestinian equivalent of the Shlomo Sands book "The Invention of the Jewish People". This and other problems underlie the necessity to adhere to WP:UNDUE in all questions relating to Israeli-Palestinian conflict in neutral way, and not to create artificial equality between marginal and mainstream views.--Tritomex (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's all be comprehensively discussed and rejected on several pages. Please don't blog here. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Tritomex, your continuous efforts to establish the WP:TRUTH is problematic. I agree with you on almost everything factual you say and edit (Yes, most academic research points against the Khazar theory; Yes, North African Jews appear to have strong genetic connections to the Levant), but your style of both editing and debating leaves much to be desired. First, stop edit warring. When there are content disputes, try to write at least 4 arguments on the talk page for every 1 edit you make, instead of 4 edits for every comments. Second, stop misrepresenting what others have said; nobody has suggested we could not include Moshe Gil so that point is moot. Third, stop trying to state what is the WP:TRUTH. You don't know, I don't know and nobody else does either. That's why we present different hypotheses, and try to do so in a neutral way. Fourth, we cannot and should not start to include what blogers think about academic articles. As has been pointed out repeatedly, if the study in question comes under criticism in other academic studies, then we should include those studies. Misplaced Pages is not WP:NEWS and we're in no hurry. In this particular case, the fact that Khan's blog post isn't even on the actual published article should make the whole argument irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

With mutual respect, My last edition to this page and in fact the only edition related to this subject was made on February 4th, so before making serious allegations about different editors, please check the facts. You overlooked the opinion of at least three editors that Discover (magazine) is not a blog, but a science magazine and certainly Rhazib Khan is not an individual bloger. Although I stated above that the proposed edition of Zeero000 was acceptable, and this includes the removal of Khan, the reason for this is not because I consider Discover (magazine) unreliable. Before editions editors have to be aware about what is minority and majority view, as otherwise there is huge possibility for WP:BALANCE violation.--Tritomex (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Razib Khan is obviously an individual blogger, whatever else you want to say. There has been no discussion of Discover magazine as an unreliable sources. And so on. Your replies are really remarkably unconstructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What is to be done

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Method

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

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

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

Chronicle of Events Issue

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

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

Section Reorganization, Images

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

Judaism debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flensing the blubber. A suggestion for the lead

This is one way of drastically trimmming the lead, without touching its content, in order to provide editors with a workable text to improve upon. Below it, I have placed the "stuff" I consider inappropriate to the guidelines set forth in WP:LEAD. Just a suggestion.

The Khazars (Template:Lang-he-n (Kuzarim), Template:Lang-ar (khazar), Template:Lang-tr, Template:Lang-gr, Russian: Хазары, Template:Lang-tt; {خزر,Template:Lang-la) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who created one of the largest states of medieval Eurasia, Khazaria, and established the first feudal state in Eastern Europe. Their capital was Atil and their territory comprised much of modern-day European Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, Azerbaijan, large portions of the northern Caucasus (Circassia, Dagestan), parts of Georgia, the Crimea, and northeastern Turkey. Khazaria was one of the major arteries of commerce between northern Europe and southwestern Asia. Commanding the western marches of the Silk Road at the height of its power, it played a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East and Europe.

Khazaria served as a buffer state between Europe and the rising tide of Islamic conquest and enjoyed a strategic entente with the Christian Byzantium empire throughout the period of the Arab–Khazar Wars. The Khazars successfully staved off attempts by armies of the Umayyad Caliphate, beginning in 642, to penetrate north of the Caucasus. At the same time, they sought to achieve parity with their Abrahamic neighbors by replacing their traditional cult of Tengriism with a more sophisticated faith, and, in the 8th century, the Khazar royalty and much of the aristocracy are reported to have converted to Judaism. Countering the examples of monolithic creedal empires on their borders, the new state was tolerant of all religions and paganism, and, successfully managing the transition from nomadic to settled civilisation, established many towns and cities between the Caspian Sea and the Crimean Peninsula on the Black Sea, where they thrived as literate and multi-lingual agriculturalists, manufacturers and international traders.

Between 965 and 969, Khazar sovereignty was broken by Kievan Rus. Sviatoslav I of Kiev defeated them in 965 by conquering the Khazar fortress of Sarkel. Two years later, Sviatoslav conquered Atil, after which he campaigned in the Balkans.The Rus and the Hungarians both adopted the dual-kingship system of the Khazars, where kingship was divided between the khagan and the Bek. The Khagan was purely a spiritual ruler or figurehead with limited powers, while the Bek was responsible for administration and military affairs.ref/ref

A minority theory, which holds that the Khazars did not disappear on the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe, has enjoyed mixed fortunes in the scholarly world.ref/ref Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Stuff elided

Language:

Khazar inscriptions are mainly in an eastern Turkish runic script. Khazar Correspondence is one of the very few primary sources on history of Khazars.

The name "Khazar" is found in numerous languages

and seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering" (Modern Turkish: Gezer).

Because of their jurisdiction over the area in the past, Turkic people today still call the Caspian Sea the Khazar Sea. Pax Khazarica is a term used by historians to refer to the period during which the Khazaria dominated the Pontic steppe and the Caucasus Mountains.

The period when the Khazars had their greatest power corresponded with the European Dark Ages, and took place at a very important time for the creation of capitalism.

In medieval (9th-11th centuries) Byzantine sources written in Greek, Khazaria was referred to as Eastern Tourkia (Τουρκία), whereas the Principality of Hungary was referred to as Western Tourkia.

Khazaria had an ongoing entente with Byzantium. Serving their partner in wars against the Abbasid Caliphate, Khazars aided the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (reigned 610–641) by sending an army of 40,000 soldiers in their campaign against the Persians in the Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628. In 775, Leo (son of Tzitzak) was crowned as the sole emperor of the Byzantine Empire. Sarkel (a Turkish word meaning White Fortress) was built in 830s by a joint team of Greek and Khazar architects to protect the north-western border of the Khazar state. The chief engineer during the construction of Sarkel was Petronas Kamateros (Πετρωνᾶς Καματηρός) who later became the governor of Cherson.

Khazars played a role in the balance of powers and destiny of world civilization. After Kubrat's Great Bulgaria was destroyed by the Khazars, some of the Bulgars fled to the west and founded a new Bulgar state (present day Bulgaria) near the Danubian Plain, under the command of Khan Asparukh. The most of the rest of the Bulgars fled to the north of the Volga River region and founded another state there called Volga Bulgaria (present day Tatarstan and Chuvashia). The eldest son of Kubrat, Bat-Bayan Bezmer allied his Kara-Bulgars (Black Bulgars) with the Khazars. Kara-Bulgars were descendent of the tribes from Attila's state called Kutrigurs.

The Khazars had, for years, been venturing forth southward, in their marauding raids on the Muslim countries south of the Caucasus.

In a hadith, Khazars are mentioned as follows: Allah's Apostle (Mohammed) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179)

By the Khazars helped to block the western spread of Islam in Europe. Some scholars go to the extreme of arguing that, in the unlikely scenario Arabs had occupied what is now Ukraine and Russia, the Rus might never have been able to push south and east from the Baltic to establish Russia.

The first major attempt of the Muslim armies to take control of the Transcaucasus came in 642. Islamic armies conquered part of Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Armenia, and what is now the modern-day post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan and surrounded the Byzantine heartland (present-day Turkey) in a pincer movement which extended from the Mediterranean to the Caucasus and the southern shores of the Caspian. This was the time when the long series of wars called the Arab–Khazar Wars began. These wars largely ended with Arab defeats, with a fairly well-known commander, Abd ar-Rahman ibn Rabiah, perishing in one instance. The Arab armies' inability to traverse the Caucasus played a role in preventing them from succeeding in their siege of the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Coupled with the military barrier presented by the Khazars themselves, this protected Europe from more direct and intensive assaults by the forces of Islam. After fighting the Arabs to a standstill in the North Caucasus, Khazars became increasingly interested in replacing their Tengriism with a state religion that would give them equal religious standing with their Abrahamic neighbors. During the 8th century, the Khazar royalty and much of the aristocracy converted to a form of Judaism. Yitzhak ha-Sangari is the name of the rabbi who converted the Khazars to Judaism according to Jewish sources.

Khazars were judged according to the Torah, while the other tribes were judged according to their own laws. Being a surprisingly tolerant and pluralistic society, even its army incorporated Jews, Christians, Muslims and Pagans at a time when religious warfare was the order of the day around the Mediterranean and in Western Europe. By welcoming educated and worldly Jews from both Christian Europe and the Islamic Middle East, Khazars rapidly absorbed many of the arts and technologies of civilization. As a direct result of this cultural infusion, they became one of the very few Asian steppe tribal societies that successfully made the transition from nomad to urbanite. The Rus princes even borrowed Turkic words like Khagan and Bogatyr. Many artifacts from the Khazars, exhibiting their artistic and industrial talents, have survived to the present day which are today being exhibited in the Hermitage Museum.

According to Dunlop, Yitzhak ha-Sangari was the name of rabbi who converted Khazar royalty and nobility to Judaism not all Khazars.Khazaria.com is self published article.--Tritomex (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New suggestion for the introduction

Nishidani, thanks for a good and constructive suggestion. I would even go a bit further, eliminating some details that might not be necessary in the lead though they should be in the article.
The Khazars (Template:Lang-he-n (Kuzarim), Template:Lang-ar (khazar), Template:Lang-tr, Russian: Хазары, Template:Lang-tt) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who created one of the largest states of medieval Eurasia, Khazaria, and established the first feudal state in Eastern Europe, with its capital in Atil. Khazaria was one of the major arteries of commerce between northern Europe and southwestern Asia. Commanding the western marches of the Silk Road, it played a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East and Europe. Starting in the 8th century, the Khazar royalty and much of the aristocracy are reported to have converted to Judaism.

Khazaria served as a buffer state between Europe and the rising tide of Islamic conquest and enjoyed a strategic entente with the Christian Byzantium empire throughout the period of the Arab–Khazar Wars. The Khazars successfully staved off attempts by armies of the Umayyad Caliphate, beginning in 642, to penetrate north of the Caucasus. Between 965 and 969, the Khazar state was conquered by the Kievan Rus under Sviatoslav I of Kiev who conquered Atil in 967.

Some 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, while many other scholars reject this hypothesis.

We would of course need sources for both theories, and I think we could add a sentence to make it clear that the dominating theory these days is against the Khazar-Ashkenazi connection.Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me. The shorter the better.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fringe and marginal theory claims unsupported and refuted by almost all academic sources does not go in to intro. This proposal is fully unacceptable and clear POV: (WP:UNDUE) The Hebrew name of Khazars are irrelevant for any Turkic people. More so I do not see any valid reason for the removal of already existing material, certainly no reason for its replacement in this way. --Tritomex (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't give the same weight to both theories as one is discredited by scientific community.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start. A mention in one sentence of the issue that (alas) is the only reason most people have heard of the Khazars is certainly appropriate. Zero 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a single sentence referring to "some scholars" is NOT giving equal weight. Obviously full removal of what is indeed a very well known belief, would be tantamount to censorship and totally unacceptable. Shrike and Tritomex if you want to make sure WP readers get a balanced discussion then always taking extreme positions will not achieve it, because it will only impede good editors and attract ones who are going to take the opposite positions to you. You should be supporting the efforts of people trying to make sure the article is better written, not insisting on making it even more unstable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A provisional sketch of what that one sentence in the lead would refer to might run like the following, which I think is all that need be said on the Khazar page, which should be restricted to the history, society and culture of the Khazars. I.e.

The idea that the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe stem from a foundational core of Khazars dates back to Hugo von Kutschera (1910) and the Israeli historian Abraham N. Poliak (1944) The theory gained some notoriety with the publication of Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe. which was widely 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 argued it has no evidence to support it and was ignored by all serious scholars. - Raphael Patai, however, defended it, 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.

The controversy is mentioned, no judgement is made, other than noting its minor and controversial status, and its ups and downs. The two redlinked scholars have snippet bios in the German wiki, but I don't know how to make the right wikilink.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz's revision of my draft evidently has been approved of by both myself and Zero. I don't think Andrew objected either.Laszlo said in a section or two above that he's waiting (for us) to get the modified lead done. It's in an agreed on shape now. I think we have a consensus that Jeppiz's version's a major succinct improvement for the lead. Can we edit that in, and so allow him to get on with his organizational recasting of the article? Don't want to rush you guys, but strike while the iron's hot, and editors are focused.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Once that is edited in, I would suggest making a final version of the "Stuff elided" section and number the paragraphs for easier brawling, er, discussion. Much of it will plug right in to the body from there, and this would help keep track of loose ends. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for inclusion of fringe theory in the lead, at least 3 other editor made it clear. To claim that this theory has "revived support and interest" is WP:OR. To present the views of Shlomo Sand and Wexler without the views of entire academic historians community, to take out Elhaik claims and to present them in lead, while ignoring 23 respected genetic studies, to call the Khazar Theory, which is refuted by almost entire academic society only a polemic issue is clear POV pushing. Elhaik, Sand and Wexler do not have even the same ideas on Khazars but in many aspects they fully contradict each other.The claims regarding Abraham N. Poliak are also not truth. To promote "self-publishing research" in Misplaced Pages in order to obtain POV is also unacceptable. As Moshe Gil one of the most respected historian of Jewish people has said (based on his life long research)and this view contrary to marginal views are shared by almost entire academic community " Unavoidably we arrive at the conclusion that all historical discussions, or assumptions on conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, inclusive of Jewish medieval texts, are totally baseless. It never happened." --Tritomex (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a quick remedial course in arithmetic. It's 5 to 2, and I'm not talking about the time of day. That's consensus. Please keep your comments constructive. This article's editing is not going, as so many, to die on its feet because of your 'objections'.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree with Nishidani and I once again recommend Tritomex to read up on Misplaced Pages's rules. I would recommend WP:TRUTH (as Tritomex thinks s/he can decide the version we should present) and WP:OWN (as Tritomex believes s/he has the right to veto any version) as particularly pertinent. It is worth nothing that nobody has even suggested that we should only present the Khazar-Ashenazim theory, what most of us have suggested is presenting those theories that have at least some support in the academic community and not to censor any version. There is a large consensus (not unanimous, but a consensus none the less) for that view.Jeppiz (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, although I have not had enough time to add lots of detailed comments I believe the efforts of Nishidani, Jeppiz, and Laszlo are all worthy of praise. This article is lucky to be getting this type of attention. I see nothing POV about their proposals and indeed I keep thinking and saying that Tritomex should be supporting them. The non-mainstream nature of the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory is not made clear when we embed it in an article that looks like the result of an edit war.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, I am now moving the consensual lead in. Please don't brawl over it. I know you get upset about the minority thesis, but it has to be mentioned. Bide your time, until you see the completed, wholly revised article, sometime towards the end of this week. Intervening on this one point earlier will only make our revision, which will be rapid, so much more difficult than it is. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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

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

(1) here accompanied by the edit summary.

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

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

(2) here with the edit summary:

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

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

(3) here

with the edit summary:

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

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

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

(b)Tritomex removed the following passage

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

This was supported by

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

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

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

Tritomex threw the baby out with the bathwater.

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

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

1. Golden, Ben-Shammai & Róna-Tas 2007, p. 202 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldenBen-ShammaiRóna-Tas2007 (help)?
2. Encyclopaedic ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia: A-I, Volume 1 By R. Khanam
3. Thomas T. Allsen 1997, ‘Ever Closer Encounters: The Appropriation of Culture and the Apportionment of Peoples in the Mongol Empire’, Journal of Early Modern History, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2-23.
4. S. A. M. Adshead 1993, Central Asia in World History (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press).
5. Kevin A. Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1999, pages 82-86, 99-107; and Samuel Kurinsky, The Glassmakers: An Odyssey of the Jews, New York: Hippocrene Books, 1991, pages 321-352
6. Hebrew sing. "Kuzari" כוזרי plur. "Kuzarim" כוזרים; Turkish sing. "Hazar" plur. Hazarlar; Russian sing. Хазарин plur. Хазары; Tatar sing. Xäzär plur. Xäzärlär; Crimean Tatar sing. Hazar, plur. Hazarlar; Greek Χαζάροι/Χάζαροι; Persian خزر khazar; Latin "Gazari" or "Cosri"
7. cf. Turkish adjective 'gezer' = "mobile", verb 'gezmek' = "to walk around", 'gez-' being the root for the idea of "stroll".
8. Adshead 1988, China in World History (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press); and Adshead 1997, Material Culture in Europe and China, 1400–1800 (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press
9. Carter V. Findley, The Turks in world history, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 51
10. Peter B. Golden, Nomads and their neighbours in the Russian steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs, Ashgate/Variorum, 2003. "Tenth-century Byzantine sources, speaking in cultural more than ethnic terms, acknowledged a wide zone of diffusion by referring to the Khazar lands as 'Eastern Tourkia' and Hungary as 'Western Tourkia.'" Carter Vaughn Findley, The Turks in the World History, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 51, citing Peter B. Golden, 'Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity Amongst the Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia,' Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982), 37–76.
11. http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=I-RTt0Q6AcYC&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=khazars+40000&source=bl&ots=HED5ynlDuP&sig=H1wHJ2PDC5D804-i3eiXBKU5ucA&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=N6QhUK24E6uL4gSlioDwAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=khazars%2040000&f=false
12. Khazar, Encyclopædia Britannica online
13. http://www.khazaria.com/sarkel.html
14. ^ http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html
15. http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/khazars.html
16. http://web.archive.org/web/20110427081114/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html
17. David Keys; Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization
18. Abraham Firkovich, a leader of the Karaims in the 19th century, argued that the Khazars converted to Karaimism. See Omeljan Pritsak (1978). "The Khazar kingdom's conversion to Judaism". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 2 (3): 261–281. JSTOR 41035790. for a discussion.
19. Golden, Ben-Shammai & Róna-Tas 2007, p. 202 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldenBen-ShammaiRóna-Tas2007 (help)?
20. Encyclopaedic ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia: A-I, Volume 1 By R. Khanam
21. Thomas T. Allsen 1997, ‘Ever Closer Encounters: The Appropriation of Culture and the Apportionment of Peoples in the Mongol Empire’, Journal of Early Modern History, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2-23.
22. S. A. M. Adshead 1993, Central Asia in World History (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press).
23. Kevin A. Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1999, pages 82-86, 99-107; and Samuel Kurinsky, The Glassmakers: An Odyssey of the Jews, New York: Hippocrene Books, 1991, pages 321-352
24. Koestler 1976, pp. 134, 150 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKoestler1976 (help)
25. Sand 2009, p. 234 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
26. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
27. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
28. Lewis 1999, p. 48 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewis1999 (help): ‘Some limit this denial to European Jews and make use of the theory that the Jews of Europe ar not of Israelite descent at all but are the offspring of a tribe of Central Asian Turks converted to Judaism, called the Khazars. This theory, first put forward by an Australian anthropologist in the early years of this century, 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 Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.’
29. Patai 1989, p. 71 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPatai1989 (help).
30. Altschüler 1994 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAltschüler1994 (help)
31. Brook 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrook2010 (help)
32. Toch 2012, p. 155,n.4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToch2012 (help).
33. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
34. >Wexler 2007, pp. 387–398 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWexler2007 (help).
35. Sand 2009, pp. 190–249 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help).
36. Elhaik 2012, pp. 61–74 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFElhaik2012 (help).
37. Golden 2007, pp. 9–10 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGolden2007 (help).

• 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