Talk:Khazars/Archive 8

A very important source on this issue comes from Donetsk National University. As there was a huge archeological dig of Khazar sites directed by Prof. Valeriy Flyorov, it is absolutely necessary to mention the results: [1] I suggest adding to conversion passage the following sentences:

Archeological excavations of Khazar sites found no archaeological proof of the presence of Jews and proselytes in the kaganate except for individual and rather dubitable finds. No burials by the Jewish rite were found. According to Prof. V.S.Fliorov, from the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, who directed excavations of Khazar sites from 2009, "the Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable." Fliorov claimed that the number of Jews was small and that they lived mostly in the towns of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol.--Tritomex (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you were all over the Ashkenazi Jews page pressing the argument for a ubiquitous presence from Roman times, though the archaeological evidence outside a few places like Cologne and Trier is very rare. When Fliorov has his paper published in a book, I'm sure we'll note his fringe view here on 'conversion to Judaism'. Try to think laterally: in one place scarce evidence is proof of presence, in the other scarce evidence is proof of negligible absence. When editors or writers do that, it's called selective bias.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any archeological excavation results or sources claiming such general conclusions regarding the alleged sparse presence of Jews in Europe from Roman times, as you said. I cant recall that I objected anywhere the addition of any reliable archeological evidence claiming such results. More, so there are as far as I know archeological evidences about Jewish presence (on low scale) in that time in Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania, while regarding the scales of archeological findings in Cologne, the Jewish presence there was certainly extensive. Of course I do consider this important for relevant articles. However, I am sure that I nowhere objected the addition of any archeological results.

Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify them as being anything close to fringe. There is no policy based argument to exclude this unique material of high quality from zhis article, and the desire or POV to deny any scholarly evidence which does not support the Khazarian hypothesis is not a policy based argument, nor is the "published book" precondition for presenting the results of archeological excavations and archeological findings of the team directed by the professor of the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences (by any WIkipedia rule). To suggest to exclude archeology and its findings from the articles about Khazars is again out of question. Fliorov findings are btw mentioned by Michael Toch, whom you used as source in AJ article. by [2]--Tritomex (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify it from being anything close to fringe.

Tritomex, will you promise to either improve your English, or to read what your interlocutors write. Much of what you say in ostensible response to my remark doesn't answer my point.

As to Flyorov, I for one have no problem with him, as he has the proper credentials. All you need to is provide the academic source, publishing house, main results or conclusions, with Russian or Hebrew text (Vladimir Petroukhin, Valery Flyorov,'The Jews in the Khazaria Kingdom according to the Archeological Evidence' in Alexander Kulik, History of the Jews in Russia: From Ancient Times to the Early Modern Ags, Jerusalem pp.126-137), and, if you propose an edit, an adequate, precise English summary of the point you mentioned, so that, if appropriate, we can register it here. His fringe view consists in contesting the documentary sources for conversion by saying he found no archeological evidence for such.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave the source: The European Steppes in the Middle Ages. Vol.9. The Khazarian times. Book of Collected Works/ Ed.-in-Chief A.V.Yevglevsky; Donetsk National University. – Vol.9. Donetsk National University, 2012. – 444 pp. – (Proceedings in Archaeology)Regarding the precise wording, I also gave my proposal, and I am waiting for eventual remarks or suggestions from other editors.--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You cannot wave a book title for a series of assertions. You need to (per WP:V), in this case, back each of your assrtions about Flyorov's positions by citing the exact article in those books, and the page numbers, providing also, in this case, the Russian text. That way other editors can verify the assertions, and eventually help craft an appropriate entry on this which is faithful to the original source.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

People need to stop circling the wagon and get their head out of their you know. State the articles, sentences and the facts. Stop running around like a lost animal. What is it that the book says? Say it, you don't need 2 pages to state one simple sentence. Yes or No? Why. People need to wake up and say what they mean in 2-3 sentences. You don't need novel to state a one point. Sources by Jewish articles are not a valid source frankly. They are not source to begin with. Read some other books 66.110.185.244 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani Are you claiming that the scientific journal published by the archaeological research group of the Department of History of Ukraine at the Faculty of History, Donetsk National University is not reliable source for this Wikipedia article? [3]--Tritomex (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand why you keep talking round a simple request that you supply (a) a sentence (b) with the source justifying what the sentence formulates and page number, suitably formatted according to the page conventions. Please reread what I actually write, and avoid replying according to what you may think I might secretly be implying between the lines. All that is being asked of you is to respect the conventions of evidence, verifiability, documentation and sourcing established for every edit on this page, according to the best standard Wikipedia conventions. This is not something I do. Every good editor, tens of thousands of them do it.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording: Archeological excavations of Khazar sites found no archaeological proof of the presence of Jews and proselytes in the kaganate except for individual and rather dubitable finds. No burials by the Jewish rite were found. According to Prof. V.S.Fliorov, from the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, who directed excavations of Khazar sites "The Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable." Fliorov claimed that "the number of Jews was small and that they lived mostly in the towns of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol".The European Steppes in the Middle Ages. Vol.9. The Khazarian times. Book of Collected Works/ Ed.-in-Chief A.V.Yevglevsky; Donetsk National University. – Vol.9. Donetsk National University, 2012. – 444 pp. – (Proceedings in Archaeology)[4] The source is an scientific archeological journal published by Donetsk university, reliable under Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I added "Contrary to written documents" in order to have clear WP:NPOV; per source--Tritomex (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that you ignored the normative requests outlined above.

Tritomex, you are using Flyorov to state something that all scholars have repeated, as if it were a new source. When the excavations of Itil the capital were announced in 2008, no Jewish artefacts were discovered, and this was widely reported, in reports that repeated the well-known fact (from ages, that 'the limited number of Jewish religious artifacts such as mezuzas and Stars of David found at other Khazar sites prove that ordinary Khazars preferred traditional beliefs such as shamanism, or newly introduced religions including Islam.'

What Flyorov is cited as saying is well know. Archeologists have almost no evidence for a Jewish presence, thouh

The study of the late Roman settlement at the Vishesteblievskaya-11 site in the Taman region (S. V. Kashaev, Institute for the History of Material Culture) was to a great extent linked with the Khazar range of problems. The settlement is distinctive in that a score of gravestones with Hebrew symbols have been discovered over recent years on its territory, mostly found in reuse or excavated. Also, at the monument, geophysical mapping of several lots of the settlement have been carried out. The aim was to find the necropolis of the early centuries A.D. Indicators of the existence of ancient necropolis are, alongside the undamaged gravestones, a lot of fragments of limestone with inscribed Hebrew symbols.. . Due to the likely relation of the tree motive to the Turkic tradition, the studies in the Taman region aimed at shedding light on theproblem of the conversion of Khazars look promising.

What is peculiar Flyorov is not his repetition of this contradiction between the historical texts and archeological evidence. It is that he thinks archeological silence is sufficient to erase the testimony of numerous contemporary documentary sources. It is an argumentum ex silentio from archeology to overthrow an argument from textual evidence in history. So, if it is to be used it has to be used with care.

(a) You have not read the source. You cite the abstract.

(b) At the moment we have Flyorov's opinion, which consists of (1) stating no evidence of Jewish material emerged from those excavations (2) therefore he makes a serious of deductions, contradicting dozens of contemporary written sources, concerning the non-existence of conversion. That, for all I know, might be true, but Flyorov is arguing against a strong majority consensus based on historical documents in Arabic, Hebrew, and other languages.

(c) So it is quite inappropriate for you to push his thesis as a fact ('Archeological excavations of Khazar sites found no archaeological proof of the presence of Jews and proselytes in the kaganate.')

(d) I personally think his result might well merit entry, but only on condition that the whole text is available for verification, and we may contextualize his assertion within the reactions of the Khazar scholarly communities review of his position.

(e)So far we do not have the latter.

(f) 2kb reporting one summary view by in the wrong section.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article you have cited was also written by Flyorov, however predates this report by 4 years. Therefore it is outdated. This is further clear as the same subject is addressed here, in the next passage with the following quote:

In addition to V.S.Fliorov’s paper it should be noted that A.N.Maslovskii’s interpretation of the tombstone with Judaic religious symbols (an image of two menoroths and a lulab) and a fragment of an epitaph written in Hebrew requires additional clarification for two reasons. Firstly, judging by a number of explicit indications the image may be dated back to the Late Antiquity (the 4th-7th centuries CE). Secondly, like most Jewish artifacts of Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period from the Northern Black Sea Littoral the abovementioned tombstone was not found in situ. Therefore, an assumption about its connection with the settlement of the late 10th – the early 11th century, which was discovered at the same time, seems to be disputable....B.Totev, O.Pelevina (Dobrich, Varna, Bulgaria

As it is obvious, the dating of this findings to the 4th-7th centuries could predate the Khazars in general, and certainly predates the period of conversion. (of Khazar nobility and royalty)

(a) I cited the edited summary (not the abstract) of the archeological reports as presented by secondary source (specialized archeological journal)

(b), (c), Historically, the question about the level of proselytism among Khazars remains highly controversial with the majority of scholars arguing for limited conversions involving only Khazar royalty and nobility. The minority of historians argue for large scale conversion, while others do not support the whole idea of any conversion. This question is therefore still debated. In this case, his findings do not necessary contradicts written sources. However, guided with the intention to provide precise interpretation of the source and to avoid any distortion I added "'Contrary to written documents'" combined with direct quote from Flyorov article "Archeological excavations of Khazar sites found no archaeological proof of the presence of Jews and proselytes in the kaganate.'" Fliorov is an academic historian and academic archeologists and I do not believe that "strong majority consensus based on historical documents in Arabic, Hebrew, and other languages" exists regarding large scale conversions among Khazars in general (only the conversion of nobility and royalty can be depicted as such)

(d), (e) The archeological journal published by highly reliable source is WP:RS under Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that it comes from an edited summary (therefore representing secondary source) of archeological reports, does not make this source unreliable.

(f) The scope of reporting can be alvays seen as too short, or to long. Based on the fact, that this report reflects the only text (written by archeologists in this article) dealing with one of the most essential elements regarding this subject, namely, The Khazar archeology, from the authority who directed those excavation, the importance of his findings regarding this controversial topic is highly valuable.--Tritomex (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If any doubts regarding the reliability of scientific journal published by the archaeological research group of the Department of History of Ukraine at the Faculty of History, Donetsk National University, exists, I will bring this to WP:RS noticeboard for further discussions, if this is required.--Tritomex (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Nothing in your repetitive comments answers my points. Indeed you keep asserting I am challenging the source. I am not. You haven't read it. You can't even supply the pagination for Flyorov's paper.Your edit is in line with your general tendency for clapping in blobs of material on fringe perspectives (Moshe Gil in his old age in a non RS journal; Douglas Petrovich at Ophel inscription, which is proof if needed you understand neither WP:Undue, nor WP:RS). You don't even cite the article underneath Flyorov's (Notes on Jewish tombstone found near erevolochnyi Yerik settlement in delta of Don river). What you do is take Flyorov's summary statement as a fact. It is Flyorov's inference. That will be acceptable only if you can (a) provide a link to the exact article for the statements (b) provide one sentence on Flyorov's position with the page from his article where this statement is made given, along the lines: 'Flyorov argues that the absence of archeological remains of Jewish material in Khazar excavations meant conditions for conversion were unfavourable, and Jews were scarce'. (c) and use the template the page employs for all citations. Flyorov 2010, p. ???? harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlyorov2010 (help)

This is not about what you or I think. I know what I think - that we know nothing, except hypotheses and we must write the article strictly in accordance with what weight scholarly consensus gives to each hypothesis. As here. How Flyorov's argument handles the coinage evidence which major Khazar scholars use for evidence of the state conversion thesis is not explained. Could you therefore desist from your desire to prove just one of many hypotheses, read policy and also, respond directly to what I or anyone else writes, without inventing things about what you think my real objections might be?Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the source of the edition is not the book of Flyorov, published in 2010 (so that I have to present a page) but an article from archeological journal published by Donetck university in 2012-Flyorov is not fringe and such claims needs at least some source, beyond original research. Moshe Gil is currently not teh subject, and certainly D Petrovich is not. The article underneath Flyorov's is not related directly to the question of conversion and if you have desire to include it in the article, you can do it by yourself. The term you used "The state conversion thesis" does not equal to the conversion of Khazarian royalty and nobility (which is widely supported thesis's)and imply to the conversion of Khazar an mass (wich is not widely supported thesis's).If you do not challenge the reliability of the source I have provided, I really do not understand what is your policy based argument to revert this edit? If you have problem with the lack of attribution , the sentence can be modified. Other sources beyond the one I have presented wont be supplied as they are not freely accessible and as the current source is fully in line with all the requirements of WP:RS.--Tritomex (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! Read the article page, read what I wrote above. The section on the theory of conversion is constructed from the sources in notes 83-140 inclusive, summarizing a wide range of scholarship arguing that there was a conversion, as related in numerous contemporary sources. Flyorov's view challenges that consensus (fine, but it is an exceptional claim) I have asked you to supply the actual pages for Dr (not Professor) Flyorov's paper, and to indicate where in his paper he draws the conclusions you cite from the summary.

I've asked you this several times, and you keep repasting in (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) the generic link to a book you've never seen, and the total number of pages.

WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

WP:V (a)surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; (b)claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.

To repeat, provides the precise pagination for the said article in that book, and give the precise page or pages where his interpretative claim is made.

Once you have provided the text and pages, his view can be summed up for the article per WP:Due. It does not, as yet, merit extensive citation, as your showcasing of one view endeavours to do.

In all sources I have examined it is Dr. Flyorov, not Professor Flyorov (Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Senior Researcher at Group of Medieval Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes, Ph.D. of History).Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, this is how you would have to do your proposed edit, once the exact pagination is found.

I.e. 'According to V.S.Flyorov, archaeological findings have failed to yield significant evidence for Jews and proselytes in the khaganate, which was, in his view, unprepared for monotheism, and unfavourable to conversion.'Flyorov 2012, p. ??? harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlyorov2012 (help). Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had to post here in reply to your suggestion below because whatever you did stops comments from being shown.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not surprising or extraordinary claim, and while you edited Wexler and Sand without this attributions, it really looks amazing that you claim this for being disputed, while it is unchallenged archeological report from the director of Khazar excavations, who is by the definition of his role the only relevant to provide the results of archeological diggings. More so, as no one in the fields of archeology ever found it surprising, nor I haven't heard for any opposite results from any archeological excavations. So, you have to back up your claims with direct sources and citations (that Flyorov is disputed).

To repeat the source is the available archeological journal, its edited summary,(secondary source-of high quality, fully in line with WP:V and WP:RS) while the entire archeological report (primary source) which I have requested is not available freely. Articles do not have page numbers.

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, only can imply to Elhaik, Wexler and Sand. The synthesis of those claims are not a valid source for creating an image that majority of scholars do support massive Khazar conversion to Judaism. This was never a case, and the contrary is much more accurate. Also, archeology and written history are complementary but not identical sciences. Show us any scholarly opinion that the the prevailing view in any sciences (history, genetics or archeology) was that the whole Khazar population converted to Judaism. Regarding the texts about Khazars (in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic) Moshe Gil, an expert in this field, provides a summary of all those text and despite having all necessary credentials and being indisputably reliable on the subject, all the contemporary texts challenging the conversion were censored. (More than 10 just from Arabic sources) (I would like to know based on what WP policy)

While you already claimed that you do not challenge the source per WP:RS, now you are doing so. So are you challenging the source or not? As the source is in my opinion reliable and other sources are not freely accessible, the only legitimate concern I can see from this is that you may challenge the source (as it is) which I provided. This can be discussed at relevant noticeboard.--Tritomex (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why the talk page does not function, I removed the latest edit, to see if the problem will be solved--Tritomex (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It works now.--Tritomex (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please try to (a) think to the point (b) be succinct, and don't try to get a conversation going. Wexler and Sand are minority, but they are widely discussed by their colleagues and peers, as the policy I stated says is required. This is not true opf Flyorov.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion, I have endeavoured to

• (a)suggest that citing a snippet summary in English of one article by a Senior Researcher, in Russian, which you have not accessed, has a position which, in the context of the scholarship amply followed by this page, looks highly minoritarian
• (b) I drew your attention to the relevant policies,which state that isolated tentative policies require strong sourcing (failure to address the policy)
• (c)the pagination for the article, but only the book (request ignored)
• (d) you cannot supply any link to the source article (request ignored)
• (e) you tried to pass off as a tenured professor someone who is a senior lecturer.
• (f) I suggested that a minority view does not required extensive citation (ignored)
• (g)I suggested you adopt the standard page template for citation (ignored)
• (h) I suggested that your original proposal, when adequately referenced with the appropriate page numbers, must be more synthetic per WP:Undue, and provided an example of how this might be done (ignored)
• (i)I have responded to your points. You fail to respond to mine. As noted, the parallel with Wexler and Sand is wrong because they are widely cited in the peer literature. Flyorov's paper as yet has had no peer review by colleagues outside his own group.

None of your reverting is collegial. It is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have not budged an inch, nor shown respect for the established template protocols, and keep restoring your original suggestion, except that now you realize that the 'Professor' in question has no professorial tenure, but is a Senior Researcher. Senior researchers who make theories that defy the field's historiographical consensus must be treated with great care.

Galassi never participates here on the talk page. He is, functionally, a support reverter. His edit summary ignores the fact that no one hear has accessed the document, and the requisite pagination in the Donetz book is lacking. Every other source used on this page has been accessed, read and linked, and you are creating an anomaly. We can't link as yet to his paper, so WP:V fails. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Being widely criticized (f.ex Sand) does not make any source more reliable, but more controversial and less reliable. Vlyorov has been cited by academic historians and the journal summary has been per reviewed and edited by professional editorial board which can not be described as "member's of his group"

You failed to show any sourced material supporting your assertion that the results of Flyorov archaeological excavations are fringie, extraordinary or isolated, a claim which I strongly challenge and which without proper source can only represent original research. As due to my chronic lack of time I have no intentions of repeating myself all the time and due to my unwillingness to engage myself in edit war, here is the proposal based on the text you have proposed and sourced with the archaeological journal I have provided.

" .S.Flyorov a senior Researcher of the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences, argues that archaeological findings have failed to yield evidence for Jews and proselytes in the khaganate, which was unprepared for monotheism, while the conditions for the conversion into Judaism were the most unfavorable."

I think if this extensive series of one sided concessions (from my side) are not enough, we should ask for third party involvement in this matter.--Tritomex (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

IF you ever get round to reading the actual page and the scholarship supporting it, at a glance when Flyorov is reported thus:-

"the Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable." Fliorov claimed that the number of Jews was small and that they lived mostly in the towns of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol

• the Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. (Yet the text and notes 82-144 show a very large number of scholars accept that a conversion to monotheism probably took place)
• 'The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable.' (well, what are the conditions for conversion to Judaism? You won't provide the text, but I'm sure it would be fascinating to understand Flyorov's sociology of conversion to Judaism. As a comparativist, conversion to southern universalist religions is attested throughout steppe nomadic tribes, from the Khazars to the Turks, to the Uyghurs and Mongols and Tibetans. It doesn't make much sense, unless you provide us with the original text and its arguments)
• 'the number of Jews was small' (since we have, for Flyorov no evidence of Jews, this is a fair deduction, but the premise is Khazar Jews behaved like the Jews in established Islamic, Byzantium and European communities. No one knows. He's entitled to his views, but that is not particularly interesting, except as the viewpoint of one, Flyorov)
• The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol(Well, that is an equivocation based on ignoring much circumstantial evidence not based on Russian archaeological digs, like the inscriptions of Khazar coinage, found in Scandinavian hoards, which we cover, if you care to read the page).

To repeat. As given from your summary of a skimpy summary of an inaccessible book, what Flyorov, an archaeologist, not a Khazarian studies specialist, thinks and deduces from archaeological finds would be well worth reporting, if it is evaluated by Khazar scholarship, and if at least we can get the fuller picture of his paper. You cannot, it appears, supply us with a copy of the paper. The bits you give are WP:Undue exceptional claims, and that is why I ask you to provide editors with access to the paper so they can verify the report.

'this extensive series of one sided concessions'????? I provided you with a compromise, you refused, replunking the same extensive report overvaluing what one single Senior Researcher in the field argues, as though it were a major contrbution to the field. It may be (shortly I will have another paper cited which also questions the conversion, but it will only get on the page when it is published, and accessible). You are far too presssed to rake up any evidence for your personal opinion, to showcase it by extensive quotes when the theory is minor. You made no compromise, you simply accepted my correction of 'Professor' to 'Senior Researcher'.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this whole issue has been discussed widely in Russian sources, and reflected on by Pletnyova and Petrukhin, I have registered the problem at the top of the Judaism section, per Golden, who supplies several references to a complex debate and sums it up. That, for the moment, should satisfy Tritomex's request. Preferably, when Florov's work is cited in accessible secondary sources by reviewing peers, we might add that as well. But his position is not original, apparently, except for the (to me) bizarre idea that steppe societies must be 'prepared' for conversion to higfh faiths. The conversion only affected, in the consensus narrative, the elite who governed the realm.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Galassi. You don't contribute except for support votes or for tagging. The extra tag is supercilious. Tritomex argued for one new source. The gravamen of his point was met by several additional edits which allowed the point he wants to be made, while dispensing with his use of a snippet summary to an article no one can see. To brand the whole article as POV is indecently inaccurate, when it requires a patience akin to sainthood to stop editors who think Khazars were Jews, or editors who think there were no Jews in Khazaria (i.e. editors with a hyperactive obsession with one small issue), from messing a fairly reasonable summary of the best scholarly opinion of all aspects of Khazaria. I'll remove it, and the split proposal, which was voted down as technically arduous and probably unnecessary.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You've put the pov tag back. So you have made a judgement to the effect that 'the neutrality of this article is disputed'. So put down a list of what you personally consider to be the elements in the article which compromise its aspirations to neutrality, so that editors can grasp what on earth your objections, hitherto obscured by silence, are. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It have been done enough times. Archives are full.--Tritomex (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Galassi has given almost zero input on the article as it now stands, an article written slowly under close collaborative supervision, and therefore consensually. All past discussions on POV were addressed in detail in the archives, and the phrasing and structuring we have are a result of those deliberations. Unless Galassi can come up with a detailed list of POV issues, the tag is inappropriate. He's had almost a week to make such a list, and hasn't therefore it goes. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because it singled out one scholar, controversial at that (though the content of the edit was interesting), for extended paraphrase of his views. You can't do that in a summary narrative of the scholarly field, which is the only way we can get order into this intricate article. To boot, several things mentioned there are themselves contested (the Rhadaniyya-Khazar hypothesis, for example). If you have Gumilev material that has be cited by Khazar scholars as an important contribution to the reconstuction of Khazar history, on an issue we have so far missed, by all means inform the page. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ronreisman, which of the 9 citations you added for "This Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism" state that this Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism? I don't have time to look at all of them, but the several I selected at random give examples without stating how common it is. Zero^talk 05:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish editors on a page studied the whole page rather than using wikipedia to push one point over multiple pages, regardles of topic, in this case 'antisemitism'. The first point is the relevant literature cited is thick with references to obscure proponents of that notion in the United States. I don't know why Canada is ignored: I'll add that stuff in due course on the proper page for these expansions, i.e. Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry. This page has been editwarred to death, and retrieved and reworked to fairly rigorous standards, and has enjoyed some stability except for harping on 'often', or the generalization itself in the lead (some deny it, some wish to accentuate it). The main objection is that, as the theory's history section shows, it has enjoyed a long life in Jewish historiography, many of its main proponents being Jewish. It simply does not make sense to imply by edits that make the theory out to be deeply, or constantly or intrinsically antisemitic, that Jews were producing a self-defeating antisemitic hypothesis. This article is, please not, not about Israel or its contemporary sensitivities about legitimation. It is about the Khazars, and the scholarly work done on the Khazars. All details, every scrapable piece of evidence from the nooks and crannies of provvincial rumour, ideological obsessions, meme recyclings at the fringe, can enjoy a thriving expansion at the as yet undeveloped Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry page. Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

People shouldn't include too many garbage, inflammatory and exaggerating words in the articles like "one of the most", "major", "one of the...", "long served". Keep it objective and matter of fact instead of inserting biased words. Keep it encyclopedic. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've examined instances of all three, and changed two, I think. The rest are quite 'encyclopedic' and do not tout anything. Next time round, list usages you object to by citing the passages, please. It's an easy ride to read, but hard scrabbling to write. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God you guys already closed down this discussion. I just want to say this, or merely suggest this article to be split article in two, just like that anon says. One article that deals with the ethnic group and the other one that deals with the semi-legendary political entity and their internal policies, struggles, and so on. I think this solution is pretty feasible. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We already had those discussions before and the general consensus was not to split. Khazar (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, please address the talk page when you have an edit that is challenged. In the present instance, after forcing me to revert you, you rewrote the text cited to Brooks pp.3-4 in a way which overwrote the distinction he, at least, made on those pages. He wrote:

Some of these Khazars belonged to a Slavic type, while others were short-skulled Europeans. Only a few Mongolian types were found.

Reading this I wrote: 'with minor traces of Mongolian' or something of that sort, and, while this is faithful to the source, you rephrased it to ignore what the source says. You just don't do that here. (2) If you can refer us to one comprehensive accessible RS study, readily available and verifiable, on the argument, by all means set it down here. The text must be accessible to all readers to be verifiable. Personally I think this trivial for a section on the 'People', esp. given that we are told 28 tribes went into the Khazar tribal confederation. One would indeed expect some groups of Mongol descent or origin. The Ashina themselves appear to be Türkic. Thirdly, to make generic statements you need a considerable sample base to derive statistically a reliable generalization about types. I don't see this as yet, except for the report on the key city of Sarkel, hence Brook. At the most we are bickering over a half sentence, and this does not warrant so much reverting or edit-warring. So please argue your point of view here before proceeding, to obtain feedback from other editors and not only myself. Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proselytize is a pejorative term for promoting conversions in religion. Specifically it refers to Jewish persons making converts of gentiles. I delete it as an opinion and a violation of NPOV. The term proselyte connotes negativity of making converts. It is unnecessary. Saying "proselytize" means "Make converts, and this is a repugnant thing to do." The article does not need that opinion in it.(EnochBethany (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC))

Wrong, proselytizing today just means "seeking conversions." The word itself is not perjorative anymore. See Wiktionary. Your idiosyncratic redefinition as 'a perjorative term for converting gentiles to Judaism' betrays a POV on your part, not the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct! It is not idiosyncratic. Just look at the Wikipedia article on Proselyte:

The biblical term "proselyte" is an anglicization of the Koine Greek term προσήλυτος/proselytos, as used in the Greek Old Testament for "stranger", i.e. a "newcomer to Israel";[1] a "sojourner in the land",[2] and in the Greek New Testament[3] for a first century convert to Judaism, generally from Ancient Greek religion. It is a translation of the Biblical Hebrew phrase גר תושב/ger toshav."

Proselytizing has a negative connotation which is unnecessary in this article. Why do you insist on retaining the word when "making converts" is the neutral term? It is common knowledge that proselytize has negative connotation. http://books.google.com/books?id=TvkLlvl1J6sC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=proselytize+pejorative&source=bl&ots=rhL98jEq29&sig=IlMNCCI5hYqeyXXsYk187jvExL4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jXm9U7jVGoOvyATM1YHYDg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=proselytize%20pejorative&f=false . This is just one example.

""The word proselytize . . . , it is used mainly of religion, often in a pejorative sense. When we say that someone is proselytizing we generally are making an accusation, implicitly criticizing their actions."

"most often described in pejorative terms, even as immoral activity."

I might add that the entire sentence can be deleted for having no citation from a reliable secondary source, which would be for example the book I quote from Google books. Sweetman: Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square(EnochBethany (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC))

This is a dubious source for the definition and use of the word, as the book is making a political and religious argument. The wiktionary definition above uses "to encourage"; Webster uses "to try to persuade," "to induce," "to recruit"; and Oxford uses "Convert or attempt to convert." None of the these definitions imply the use of forced conversion, as you characterize the term. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid making a storm in a teacup on this. I think it is reasonably obvious that proselytize can have a negative connotation in the mind of a native English speaking. If there is a way to avoid that, and directly say that we mean actively seeking to make converts, why would it be so important to keep that one word?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that this is the first that it's been brought up as supposedly having a negative connotation, and it is used throughout the site and much of academia without a negative connotation -- which is why the dictionaries (including the OED and Webster) do not describe it in a negative way. It is a negative action to engage in here, but even "seeking converts" here is a negative action.

The storm in a teacup is being brewed by a user who has a history of raising non-issues, and generally relies on religiously-biased sources to the exclusion of mainstream academia.

Mainstream sources do not imagine a problem with "proselytize," beyond one political commentary discussing the unique context the author chooses to use it in (without reflecting common usage as documented by dictionaries). Certain religiously biased sources may have a problem with the term simply because they don't want to be the targets of proselytism, even if they wish to "seek converts." Distinguishing between the two is religiously biased doublethink, not reflective of actual common negative connotations. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly concur with Ian. I can't remember exactly what source I used in writing that passage but 'proselytization' is all over the secondary sources commenting on that period. Peter Golden certainly uses it of the pressures on the Khazars from Islam and Christianity which, as any glance at the history shows, were both great powers and proselytisers, as one would expect from two religions which arose from Judaism when it still retained strong interests in conversion (indeed, historians date the transition from openness to conversion in Judaism to the closure ('Converts are as difficult for Jews as a scab' as the late saying goes) to outsiders to the impact of both Islamic and Christian intolerance, which had the effect of making Jewish communities lose converts, and, as Jews were forced increasingly to intermarry amongst themselves, they developed a wariness about conversion which for more than a millenium had not been problematical. As to usage, 'proselytise' is the active voice of 'convert' and retains a distinct semantic meaning of 'seeking to persuade' people to convert, whereas 'convert' is more processive, abrupt. Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There is actually no reasonable doubt that "proselytize" has a negative connotation. It is not necessary to express that opinion in this article, to wit, that making converts is a bad idea. "Make convert" is the neutral term, and no reasonable objection has been made to the use of that term. If making a convert is more abrupt, but proselytize connotes "seeking to persuade," all the more reason to change from proselytize to "make convert." For the powers seeking to make the converts were not just seeking to persuade; they made converts by force. Moveover, it is easy to document that adherents of Islam do speak of their efforts as making converts; but I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize. And of course it is unlikely that they would use such a term for its pejorative connotations. Do we have a consensus to use the neutral term? (EnochBethany (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC))

Did you read anything anyone else wrote? Did you bother looking at any of the dictionaries cited? Consensus at this point (especially considering the use of "proselytize" throughout the entire site and, indeed, most English writing that is not using it in an idiosyncratic fashion) would be that "proselytize" is merely (as Nishidani said) "the active voice of 'convert'" that covers the sort of gradual appealing that is referred to when we use the word "proselytize" in literally in over a thousand articles on this site. Only one other user acknowledged that you could be right, and he backed off when others presented dictionary sources. Honestly, that you looked at all of the above and thought that consensus is on your side is insulting and disrespectful to everyone except maybe Andrew Lancaster. And that's assuming you aren't being outright delusional and imagining everyone is just praising what you've said, which they haven't.

Sources (reliable and otherwise) that do not use "proselytize" in a negative context (even if they think that the beliefs proselytized for are negative or think that the group proselytized to does not need to convert): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]...

Of the first three pages in a Google books search for "proselytize," only two sources used proselytism in any way that could be interpreted negatively. One was a handbook for documenting other cultures (and not their reaction to your culture), the other was an anti-religious work. One literally has to search for negative uses and ignore the neutral or positive uses to conclude that "proselytize" is an inherently and automatically negative word in English.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize.

Will Zaki Badawi do?

'Islam is a proselytising religion. It is more or less a duty of a Muslim to proclaim his religion and see if other people would be attracted'. Third Way:The Modern World Through Christian Eyes, Vol.19. No.4 May 1996 p.18

Now kindly back off, pack up and go away.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Our fellow User:Smart Nomad objects to certain tribes being listed. What's you take on this. Khazar (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My take, after your rude, inappropriate and unacceptable threat is that you are ignoring the source. Why threaten me, I mean really? Page 14 states they were part of the Tiele union. Smart Nomad (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary: In the article it states the Bulgars were in union with the Khazars; the source does not state that, instead it states that the Volga Bulgars were part of the Tiele union. The Volga Bulgars never united with the Khazars, but were vassals of them until Khazaria's destruction, after which Volga Bulgaria became an independent and powerful state. Smart Nomad (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So there isn't any response from User:Al Khazar, both here and on his talk page,where I asked him why he isn't commenting on the fact that it doesn't say, in the source, that the Volga Bulgars were in union with the Khazars. He says I must 'duke it out' on the talk page - those are a poor (provocative) choice of words to use, showing that he (wrongfully) thinks I want to argue or something. He also says I have a "burden" by pointing out that it doesn't say that on the source. Additionally he says I didn't discuss - but I did - I mentioned it twice in my edit comments that it doesn't say that in the source. He just reverts without explaining (unlike me). Then he starts a new section on the talk page without explaining the issue (new comers wouldn't know what is happening, that is why I wrote a summary), asks users what their take is, but doesn't give his own opinion or take. Not very helpful at all. Smart Nomad (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Still no response? I will remove it then. Smart Nomad (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Consensus requires at least a week to be established. You haven't garnered any support for your POV. Also, none of us here are on Wikipedia 24/7 unlike you, so don't expect a response within 12 hours. I already warned you about edit warring. I'm sure you'll have fun defending yourself at WP:ANI for edit warring like you always do. Khazar (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me User:Al Khazar, consensus, week? GO READ THE SOURCE, OK? I WILL defend myself, because I have a source to back me up. You have misinterpreted the source (if you have even read it), so it clear you are in the wrong, I have nothing to worry about. I will now report you for edit warring and will explain your actions - including your disruptive editing which borders on the insane. POV - are you serious, explain how is it POV? So, according to you if I follow the source then it is my POV, please be serious and please don't throw ridiculous accusations like that, which make no sense. Yet again you fail to discuss the source and the core matter of this situation, what is the matter with you? One can see from your actions - that you are not reading the source, and your use of provocative words such as 'POV' that you are just here to argue, I cannot take you seriously because of that. Smart Nomad (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your have already warned me about edit warring? What are you trying to say? That I broke the rule? No I didn't, clearly, as I was well out of the 24 hour range. You are sure I'm going to have fun defending myself? You are using provocative language again in that statement. That is completely unnecessary, rude and inappropriate, which shows your nature, your assumptions and the type of person I am dealing with and trying to have a discussion with. I have confronted you about the source and asked you directly why you haven't commented on the fact that it doesn't say that on the source, but you continue to evade that question which just goes on to show, to me, that apparently you aren't interested in discussions and resolving the problem.

Why would I need consensus for removing something that is clearly not stated in the source? Wait a second, why are we even having a discussion (actually I am having a discussion, not you) on this? If it doesn't say that on the source, then why argue? Smart Nomad (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to have this sentence added. It is inflammatory and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.86.194 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to develop your argument quite a bit. And please stop vandalizing the article, it is clear that the consensus is against you. If you want to change it, you should first get a consensus here, then change.Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide proof of the concensus. It appears there is a concensus against Hasbarism. Is this also being taken care of? Also please provide any personal information about yourself such as your religion or your citizenship to indicate whether there is any potential bias affecting your opinions. Thankyou.

This issue has been debated extensively; see for example 1, 2. And questioning another editor's integrity for telling you to gain consensus is highly inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has enjoyed a consensual editing, as both Jeepiz and Lazslo stated. We even share a consensus on the most petty issues, i.e., that the word 'consensus' should be spelled thus, and not 'concensus'.Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are lots of controversies that could be mentioned, but actually that there is an "association" made (in reliable sources etc etc) is not controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The table at the beginning of the article contains the mistake.

• Joseph, Aaron, Benjamin, etc are not khagans. This Viceroys (aka bek). In the Schechter Letter they are defined as not khagans.

Don't use primary sources. Secondary sources (Peter B. Golden,Nomads and Their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs, Ashgate, 2003 p.71, calls Joseph the last known Khazar qagan'); Thomas Noonan calls Aaron his father, and Benjamin his grandfather qagans (WofKh 2007 p.240) of course the whole king list is conjectural and that should be revised with care and made clear.

Khagan or bek is a topic for discussion on secondary sources. Be careful. Here, in the text of article Joseph never called «Khagan».--213.142.52.80 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You said they were never called khagans. They are so called in the secondary literature, and we are guided by that.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• In sources there is no mention of Khan Tuvan and Irbis. This is a fake.

Irbis is mentioned in Khazaria (1999) p.69 with footnotes. Khan-Tuvanaka Dyggvi, is cited by Omeljan Pritsak. However, these two do require more work.

But no primary sources. Peter B. Golden Khazar Studies't know these people.--213.142.52.80 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are dangerous because everything in them is subject to challenges in interpretation. One looked for (a)consensus or (b) authoritative views. That is all.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay Irbis exists in primary sources and secondary literature. But not Khan-Tuvan. Who, apart from Pritsak? Maybe he broke scientific protocol. He invented a new khagan.--46.48.118.62 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't second-guess authorities, of which Omeljan Pritsak is one. I think the whole king/qağan list is problematical, and needs much more work. But I can't find a good source dealing specifically with it at the moment. If you sight one, let me know.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a ready list of trusted sources. I made a list in the russian Wikipedia using secondary sources and primary sources for verification. There Are 4 undisputed Khazar kagan: Busir (Byzantine chronicle, years references 704-711), Bihar (St. Stephen of Surozh, 732-end 750-s), Baghatur (Ahmad ibn A'tham, 760-762/763) и Zachariah (st. Cyril, 860-861). Tong Yabghu it khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate, but it is associated with the Khazars sometimes in the primary sources. Irbis also khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate. He is associated with the Khazar hypothesis. Khan Tuvan probably fake Pritsak's. David is mentioned in Mandgelis Document, this fake text hoax of Abraham Firkovich. Georgius Tzul he appears only at the expense of Kedrenos and John Skylitzes and calls him "Kagan". In fact, he belonged to the clan of the Byzantine officials in Crimea. Archaeologists have found its printing and print several of his relatives 10th and 11th centuries. --213.142.52.80 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, particularly since that list we have has always looked suspicious to me. Still, the primary sources all over this subject are very confusing, and we just have to wait until a good solid academic paper examines this and throws some light, by a thorough survey of the kingship/qağan names and the scholarship on them. Perhaps the subject is too complex, since the variables with different datings, make establishing any likely chronological ordering very difficult. On wikipedia, patience is a virtue, and wary caution a necessity on such a challengingly obscure topic like this. Your suggestions and notes are much appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Atil fell in 968/969 year, not 967.

Historians are not certain, and 969 =by that date, i,e, when ibn Hauqal mentions refugees from that city.:Dates vary in sources from 965-969

True. There is a date 965. There is a date 968 or 969. 967 does not exist.--213.142.52.80 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means, edit in that Itil/Atil fell between 965-967.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• The lifetime of the Khazar state (618-1048). The source from which it is taken?

Some even date its foundation to ca.582. I think 650-970 CE is the most conservative estimate, but some scholars argue for a rump state surviving either into the 1020s, or 106Os.

I agree. As far as I know the Golden puts the date at the beginning of the 650. This coincides with Russian scientists.--213.142.52.80 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Modern Tatar language and modern Turkish language did not exist in the era of the Khazars. The territory of Tatarstan and Turkey also does not apply to the territory of Khazaria. These languages are redundant for the preamble.--213.142.52.80 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Türkic and Turkish are two different things.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the article's title inscription in Turkish between Hebrew and Tatar.--213.142.52.80 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been convinced that the Tatar term be there. We use latin terms attested from the 15th-16 centuries, and I've no evidence that the modern Turkish term wasn't in use in their chronicles, like the Kitâb-i Dede Korkut or the Book of Dedi Korkut. I can't remember them there but the Seljuk+Khazar links are arguably strong, and when I used the Turkish word for Khazars to a Turkish friend some months back, his eyes lit up in proud recognition of what he considered part of his national history, which he knew thoroughly. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To that delusional fellow MVictorP: Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement to return Jews to their homeland. What does Zionism have to do with Khazars? It is an established fact that Ashkenazi Jews are descended pretty much equally from both Israelites and Europeans, but there is no Asian Turkic descent. And anyone who says "Hasbara" to discount facts about Jewish history are anti-Semitic trolls who should be ignored.

Too many garbage words and rambling sentences -> "weasel words." Weasel words are "probably, one of the..., major, long, maybe, perhaps, sometimes" in case people didn't know what weasel language is.

An example of a weasel phrase would be.

"He was one of the...major contributions that world has known, but he continued major translations...until perhaps due to the weak collapse of the...which by then one of the fewer entities...when knowingly...but maybe the meaning probably changed due to one of the major translations...so the rain stopped due to a very weak precipitation and of course he continued to study the one of the major precipitations but then one of the fewer...but meanwhile one of the major..."

This is called weasel sentence, which means not getting to the point, many assumptions, many guesses and not being succinct or matter of fact and confusing. Anything can be weaseled. Not weasel sentence is Yes, No or don't know and very short maybe in Wikipedia. On controversial articles, non weasel language can be similar to the string theory article. It is about getting to the point. 67.109.26.198 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism". Seems like someones mere opinion. Wikipedia is for reputable sources. Don't want wikipedia to turn into a gossiping tabloid now do we. Please source this comment with reputable evidence, else remove. As stated at the top of this article "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" Confusionincode (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the archives, read the text, read WP:LEDE on summary style.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 271 does not appear to lead to anything. What is this 'metspalu and behar' paper that is referenced with a question mark? 67.183.168.203 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Alex

You're quite right, and thanks for the remind. Metspalu/Behar refers to a paper which Tritomex had pre-conference indications would be delivered in September, before it was peer-reviewed, and before it had been vetted for publication in a top scientific genetics journal. Once this is published, it will of course be adduced together with the other papers mentioned here. I left the cite in, against the rules, as a placemarker. But there is really no point to it, since this goes against policy, and with a little patience, it will find its way here in a few months. Thanks for the reminder.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation on something: wasn't tritomex (the one currently lobbying for, one could say, the "immediate inclusion" of what is in question/being discussed here) the one who in the past put forward a series of attempts to prevent any inclusions or mentions of Elhaik's work when it happened to be just a preprint that had not yet gone through peer-review [29]. And then, if I recall correctly, this user then continued to put forth a series of very strange "arguments" even after Elhaik's paper got through peer-review [30][31] still trying to prevent any inclusion or mention of it here or on any other related articles. I seem to recall some of these attempts including claims like Elhaik's work supposedly "wasn't research" because it "used data from past papers" (or some, again very strange, "position" like that). A claim there that another user noted would be pretty similar to claiming an astrophysicist supposedly couldn't do research unless they personally, physically "built the satellite themselves!"Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. It's an ongoing problem with his editing, i.e., that the wiki criteria he uses differ from page to page, depending on the POV-added value in any source as calibrated in terms of whether or not a scientific paper supports the Middle East derivation of all Jewish people or not. Elhaik's paper countered this thesis, therefore is unacceptable, even if reliably published: Behar et als. promised paper supported this thesis, therefore it is acceptable, even as a preprint poster. One can define a POV-pusher by indexing the fluctations in their policy interpretation over disparate pages. I've once or twice lacked cogency in this regard myself, and have had to readjust my perspective when this has been pointed out. But the example here is rather egregious. Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It also could further be mentioned that with Elhaik's paper a full preprint paper (rather than just an abstract) was quickly available on arXiv here [32]. Waiting to include papers till they get through peer-review is a good step, and this was of course followed by the consensus of the editors with Elhaik's study. This waiting should especially be the case here with what you termed the "promised paper" of Behar et al. Because as of right now there only appears to be a short abstract floating around some places; which would not even give the minimum of a full rough draft for any one to review (putting aside the important peer-review criterion that should again be observed here overall).Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I made this section to inform the recent editor about the mtDNA study of Ashkenazim. There was an edit here by User:Sephardickohanim who blatantly assumed that a high amount of mtDNA K in the samples supported the hypothesis. This is despite the fact that the source/citation clearly explained it wasn't. To those POV-pushers or original researchers, please don't add your opinions or assumptions; especially if it is the opossite of what the source says. Thank you. --Al Khazar 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

I think the principle we have accepted over several months, is to make a summary generalization for all of the positions, and leave any expansion of the genetics argument to the main page on the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory. The reasons for this are (a) people are invariably tempted to edit-war on this section, destabilizing the page (b) the theory is fringe/minor (somewhere in between because though fringe, a good many notable scholars have supported it) (c) even a slight expansion leads the various POV camps to retaliate, and the section by the logic of balancing threatens to explode the article, or tip it over the limits, by longueurs. As it stands, we have many sources quoted for the DNA results suggesting a Khazar origin must be quite minor, two sources for dismissing a Khazar component, and Elhaik as the only geneticist who argues for the theory. Then Nadia Abu El Haj's argument in a survey of all the genetic arguments, arguing for inconclusiveness (without going into her details). That is I think all we should say (unless more material directly bearing on this section emerges). The Genetics-Khazar-Ashkenazi thing is not particularly important for a page that deals with the historical Khazars in all aspects, and those who wish to obsess over it have the main sister page to build up the relevant details.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

PS, how come all my signed comments appear as unsigned? I always add the four tiles. Al Khazar 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

Do you pu the tildas in mechanically, or by clicking on the 4 tilda-sign in wiki markup. If the latter, and you signature doesn't appear, perhaps you should ask a techie at the village pump? Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind that, I figured it out. Khazar (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there should be genetics section because it is a biased section/information by Jewish writers creating and digging up genetics to show that Jews have the same blood for generations and that they are ethnicity. Those genetics sections are very POV to show Jews' uniqueness and the reason that information included in the Khazar article is to show that Jews are not descendant of Khazars. Any idea and thoughts that deviate from the Torah/Israel/David/Abraham is countered by Jewish DNA by saying, "You see Jews are distinct, because of this DNA study." Everything about Jews becomes religion in all the articles because Jews are very religious. Everything is religious when talking about Jews. I think we should state history, not deviate into "Israel", "DNA", "Mount Sinai", "Abraham", "halakha". We are talking about anthropology, history and actual events, actual people and their clothes, foods, descent, ideas, thoughts, movements. We are not talking about anything about "halakha" or anything from the Torah in this article. Forget Israel, Torah and David for a moment. Those are separate religious articles and people can write novel about those things in those religious articles. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Incredible. If nobody objects, I shall edit out that part, no matter how "well-documented" it is, because it is obviously biaised, trying to link those who agree with the Khazarian hypothesis with antisemites or influenced by them. Futhermore, it does not mention that before zionism, the Khazarian hypothesis was used by those who wanted to fight antisemitsm (the other side of the medal that was ignored). It is also a useless, off-topic part that gives too much focus on flimsy and disreputable sources. Let's focus on the subject at hand rather than the perceived intentions of their authors - Once again, Wikipedia is no vehicle for Hasbara.MVictorP (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been debated extensively, and you have no right to a unilateral erasure of that remark. It is phrased to avoid bias, and the text clearly shows there is no intrinsic link between antisemitism and the Khazar hypothesis. Since I made the edit, given my terrible repute as a devious 'antisemite' it can hardly be considered hasbara. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be shorter just to ask to give me a single good reason why the disputed part should stay there, or what purpose it serves, in an objective and educating article, aside that it has been forcibly introduced by Hasbara's foot in the doorway, which you undoubtely had to fight every inch. Perfumed excrement is still shit. MVictorP (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

'Perfumed excrement is still shit'. Atta-boy, Beaver. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of article one willingly leaves to beavers. I'll give you a good reason when you manage to object rationally rather than garble your adjective and substantive (it is 'excremental perfumes').Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah ah ah. Thank you for your opinion - that was an opinion, isnt'it, not a clumsy set of insults? Not too convincing. Anything else? MVictorP (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I object per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Although the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry wasn't initially used by anti-Semites, it would be biased to remove the part of that article due to many anti-Semites of today advocating the theory to show how illegitimate the Ashkenazi Jewish occupation of "Palestine". It's already mentioned in the article that it wasn't anti-Semitic to begin with so where's the bias you're mentioning? Khazar (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's so simple it screams: The Khazarian theory is of no use for anti- or pro-semitism; If we are to guess and/or judge intentions (wich in itself is all kinds of wrong), what is affected by the Khazarian theory is zionism. To replace that with generic, wide-broad semitism is a typical Hasbara attempt to once again link everything anti-zionistic with extremists, notably nazis. It's quite obvious to see for anyone who isn't animated by bias. MVictorP (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Khazar: More precisely, the bias I perceive rather comes from WP:UNDUE, the relevance and the ensuing connotation that comes from the very inclusion of the disputed part into the article. I don't see how such a theory, that besides, is held by noticeable individuals and currents on both sides of the semitic "fence", comes to be included with its broad, puerile and potentially offensive assumptions into the article. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and bears the litteral stigmatas of a trench-like editorial battle focusing only on perceived balance and references, losing its place in the bigger picture (hence the "perfumed excrement" comment above). MVictorP (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It'0s there (as the original formulator) per Lead summary style. (b) Do you have trouble construing the following sentence?

This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

That 'Sometimes' dismantles the interpretation you are making.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have Jekyll back. That "sometimes" is a weasel word/perfume for excrement. Nothing to flaunt about. However, as you failed to comprehend, this isn't a question of balance. It is a question of relevance. The disputed part's faults are many, but chief among them is irrelevance. MVictorP (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it, Sir Oracle? (Mof Venice, Graziano 1.1.100) or thereabouts.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that the "weasel words" concept has become so abused. Just about any word can be a weasel word, depending on context. "Sometimes" actually has a meaning and that meaning is sometimes (i.e. not always, not never and not exactly any particular known number of times) the appropriate one which we want in a sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

To that delusional fellow MVictorP: Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement to return Jews to their homeland. What does Zionism have to do with Khazars? It is an established fact that Ashkenazi Jews are descended pretty much equally from both Israelites and Europeans, but there is no Asian Turkic descent. And anyone who says "Hasbara" to discount facts about Jewish history are anti-Semitic trolls who should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.89.59.87 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly have any reason to be against this point of view, and such a thing is not the issue, but the whole section is far too vague. I read it in an attempt to understand why it was associated with antisemitism, but all it says it that several controversial figures have referred to the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory in their works. The whole section falls under WP:EXAMPLEFARM and frankly also under WP:SYNTHESIS, as it seems to combine a multitude of seemingly unrelated cases. It needs a lot more context from secondary sources that explain the claim in detail, or it will fail WP:NOTABILITY. Remember that there is a specific article about the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory, and that it might be best to limit its inclusion in this article. Until it's resolved I will add the examplefarm template to the section. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. For about a year, I have been absent from Wikipedia and now I have come back for a little while to fulfill some requests people made out to me a while back. One of them was creating a Khazar map in English, since this current one is in German. I am good at making high quality maps via photoshop so if anyone is interested in having a new map of the Khazar Empire in English, then I would be happy to oblige. If not, then oh well. Either way, please let me know if any of you want an english version of the map or not. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who sent the request. If it isn't too much of a hassle, please do so. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason the Crimean Karaites' theory that they descend from Khazars appeared in the Ashkenazi-Khazar theories section, which is of course misleading, because Ashkenazim and Crimean Karaites are very distinct communities. I made a split of the section to illustrate that.GreyShark (dibra) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic scope of the Khazars, rather than the political and historical aspects of the kingdom. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.

The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 174Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This page has been thoroughly written and vetted in a collegial manner. Every issue re KJhazars can, unless pared to the bone in synthetic drafting, lend itself to expansion if you have a POV favouring one side, or believe you can rebut a position. This is not the place to (a) remove en masse material that is stable (b) try to 'rebut' an idea that, on the page, is already shown to be 'minor' or 'insignificant' with multiple sourcing. (c) Everything is required to be sourced, and it is pointless to jam in 'stuff' to score points, esp. when things like

This study was criticized for its use of Armenians and Azerbaijani Jews as proxies for Khazars and for using Palestinian Arabs as a proxy for the Ancient Israelites, both of which were seen as innacurate and/or politically motivated in nature.

Lack any source. It's true, but the theory was attacked from several angles, not only this. It's bloat, in an article that has, for reasons of synthesis, and conciseness, tried to cover all angles, minimally, without exceeding the strict limitations a comprehensive yet short overview requires. Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just a bibliographical notice, with no reference to the text. I've removed it.

• Flyorov Valeriy S., Flyorova V.E. Judaism in Steppe and Forest-Steppe Khazaria: the Identification Problem of Archaeological Sources // Khazars. Stuff of First and Second International Colloquiums / ed. by Petruhin V., Moscovich V. and others. Moscow, 2005. p. 185–206. ([Флёров В.С., Флёрова В.Е. Иудаизм в степной и лесостепной Хазарии: проблема идентификации археологических источников // Хазары. Материалы Первого и Второго международных коллоквиумов / Ред. В. Петрухин, В. Москович и др. М., 2005. С. 185–206] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)).Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Khazar theory of western Jews (as oppossed to sephedic jews of the mid east) Not so far fectched? Know that the genetic diase G6Pd prevelant amng middle easter "tribees' Greeks, Sehapdic jews etc? Yet, this genetic ailment rARE in Ashkanazi jews? (Severe hemolytic anemia especally in contact with the plant Vicia faba Fava beans) Anti semetism aside. If some or most Ashkanazi jews were from the Khazer tribe(s) wouldnt that make thenm NOT TO bLAME FOR THE "KILLING' OF JESUS? Since they didnt convert to Judism till thousand years or so after Christ was Crucuified/ Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson 64.134.238.48 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MORT!01:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.48 (talk)

With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split and no response to May 2015 proposal, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic and cultural scope of the Khazars from antiquity to their disappearance, rather than the political and historical aspects of their kingdom, which existed during early middle ages. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.

The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 173Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support split as per GreyShark, the proposed split seems entirely reasonable and in line with several comparable examples. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose.
• (1)This comes far too quickly after the failed split proposal last year. It smacks of impatience with that decision(non-decision.
• (2)The result will be stub creation. Philistia is a pathetic stub (2 k) and will remain so, as is Nabatean kingdom (7 k). Both those articles should be incorporated into the mother articles which are themselves undersized. No one works them, as no one works Turkic khaganate articles (Avar Khaganate 23K), Uyghur Khaganate (26k),Turkic Khaganate (23 k), Rouran Khaganate (11 k), Western Turkic Khaganate (7k).
• (3)The length is not problematical since it is 25k under the threshold limit.
• (4)The curse of Wikipedia is stub creation with no follow on, rather than concentration on a comprehensive article of encyclopedic quality, which this one arguably exhibits.
• (5)The article, representing a year's collective review and work to at least GA standard, works by virtue of a delicate meshing of very complex materials that, were they split up or fractured thematically, probably led to loss of links and thematic associations, and only lead to a demand for a return to what was a rather strenuous effort, collectively endorsed. The bibliographical and template methods used do not lend themselves to an easy split, and fixing the forseeable mess would be extremely time consuming.
• (6)Any reader, raised on twitter, can see anything she is particularly interested in, by going to the relevant sections.
• Given these complexities, any split arrangement should optimally be done consensually on a special work page, rather than being done unilaterally and preemptively (even if one gets the nod) by one editor. If several editors were confident that could be done, and worked to produce a result that was satisfactory, my negative verdict would be changed. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Doubt. I have doubts there is much written about the Khazars as an ethnic group apart from anything which defines that ethnic group as the one which ruled the Khaganate? The two subjects seem to be published about together almost exclusively? Like Nishidani what I have seem result from such proposals in the past on Wikipedia has normally been bad. Not only does it lead to stubs, but also often the creation of separate articles is a way to slip less well-sourced material into the less read article. Khazars has clearly been a subject with a long history of POV debates where I would expect such things would eventually result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per reasons given by Nishidani above. Khazar (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Nishidani gave the reasons that why it can not be splitted under this circumstances. Karak1lc1k (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The Khazars are not the same subject as the Khazar Khaganate; they are distinctly separate subjects yet both notable. Complaining that it might be a stub or "might ruin all the work we put in to make it a good article" is not a valid reason (and smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP) if someone wants to put in the work to splitting the article. The Russian articles show the amount of material available across two articles (Хазары, Хазарский каганат), so obviously there is no reason to fear it would be a stub. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The examples cited actually confirm the concerns expressed above. The article on the ethnic group is a short stub, while that on the Khaganate is extensive. Splitting this article will create a similar stub plus an article of lower quality because an essential element has been removed. I Oppose a split. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The examples show nobody has fixed them beyond stubs yet, not they are doomed to stay stubs. As I said, if someone wants to do the work to split them, then they should. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The examples show that stubs have remained stubs, to not visible advantage to the encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also no harm to the encyclopedia that I can see. I would assume the person who wants to split it would flesh it out beyond a stub at the same time and that is the whole point. But are you suggesting all stubs might as well be merged up to a parent topic as they are not "visible advantages"? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As I originally noted, the person who wants to 'split' should show in detail how it is split. I can't see a split being done without massive reorganization, and rewriting. The word 'split' is itself in appropriate as if one could 'hive off' neatly sections and lo and behold, we have two independent articles without content loss, or problems of narrative continuity. As someone who actually has experience in writing articles, I can affirm that this is no simple matter of cleaving, but of a radical rewrite of the existing article. One should not 'vote' by an act of faith or by assuming without evidence that things will turn out for the good. For all we know, we might end up with 2 messes.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How could this possibly confuse you? How is it not obvious how it would be split? Do you not understand the difference between the Khazars and the Khazar Khaganate? There are only about 10k examples on WP about groups of people and political entities, and how they are constructed. Do you understand the difference between English people and England and what goes on each page? Again you don't own this article so nobody owes you any "evidence that things will turn out for the good." Gimme a break. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Khazars had a 3-4 century history, poorly represented and largely hypothetical, unlike England/English people, or the France/French people, each side of the binome having vast quantities of information. I don't know why you keep (three times) throwing the ownership innuendo at me. I did quite a lot of the work but Jeppiz, Andrew Lancaster, Laszlo Panaflex, and Khazar have been in on this article throughout the rewriting, which was both compositionally difficult given the complexities of the material, and given the insistent attempts to destabilize the article. These are all independent editors, who, as here, can disagree according to their lights, and yet not make arguments via innuendoes. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The same thing should happen to the Huns, and Safavid article, the people/dynasty should be separate from the Empire. As the person a who is supporting above me says they are different subject Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely there can never be a general rule about when a people and their political community should be in different articles. For some there is almost no information. Wikipedia core content policies tell us how to judge it though: it depends what the good published sources do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons expressed by Nishidani and Laszlo. DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this, since it intrudes into a footnote without any link.

Genetic reasearch published by Balanovsky in 2011 confirmed high rates of the so-called Cohen gene Haplogroup J-M267 amongst several Caucasian peoples, namely the Avars, Dargins, Kubachi, Kaitak and Lezghins

I can't verify this in Oleg Balanovsky et al 'Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region,' Molecular Biology and Evolution Volume 28, Issue 10 Pp. 2905-2920Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So there seems to be some bias in this article, with a certain user reverting my edits twice now. It wasn't just a 'state' but an empire, which dates from 680/681, as written in books. How is it fair that the word empire is used for the Khazars and 'Rus, but not for the Bulgars? Do yourself a favour and go read some books, where 'First Bulgarian Empire' is mentioned. It is clear, and not arguable, that Asparukh laid the foundations for the First Bulgarian Empire/ that he created the First Bulgarian Empire. To revert my edits seems, in my opinion, to be biased and possibly shows some agenda here.

Here are some sources, amongst others: 1)Bulgarian Review, Volumes 26-27, pg. 14. There it says "1300th Anniversary of the Foundation of the First Bulgarian..." Empire, referring to 681 - when Asparuh first came and laid the foundations/ created the empire. 2)Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria by Raymond Detrez, pg. 52. It is written there that Asparuh is the founder of the First Bulgarian Empire, go read that... So, the word 'empire' should be used so that that section can be more in line with the rest of the text. Smart Nomad (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are disagreements framed in terms of "bias"? What about the edit summary used in the first revert which included Asperukh, one of Qubrat’s sons, crossed the Danube River with his horde and laid the founfation of the Balkan Bulghar state.p.95. What source does the article use? What name does it use? Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no agenda here, other than a love of history, and a watchful eye over the way national narratives tend to "spin" the collegial and international research into history. In the present context, you changed the text, which follows closely the source language, to make the foundation of a state into the foundation of an empire. States precede empires, and those who found them think of the immediate exigencies of organizing a territorially restricted polity before they imagine 'empire building' (personal disclosure: the most comical figure in my family background boasted he went to Africa to found an empire, when he meant he wanted to set up a large farm in Uganda or Kenya). That Bulgaria later assumed an imperial reach does not mean the state originally founded had the seeds of empire, any more than that Romulus and Remo founded the Roman Empire which grew out of the small city state these legendary figures are said to have established on the banks of the Tiber, probably because control of the hills there meant control over the salt trade. In any case, one follows sources, and the sources that are acceptable are academic works by area specialists on the Khazars.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well put, thus I understand. Thanks for discusing. Smart Nomad (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate editors with a close eye for possible variations on anything in the text, and if you spot anything else that requires explanation or reconsideration, by all means note it here. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested that the Khazar was named after the old Turkish word for a cauldron, "Kazar"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.90.235 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The final 2 sentences of the lead have been stable for years, though they become from time to time the objects of contentious excision or challenges, usually by IPs. The editing consensus has supported their retention consistently, and if an experienced editor finds one or the other bit contentious, the appropriate measure is to set down the reasons on the talk page and achieve some consensus for their emendment or removal.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This IP editorializing is just that. One scientist made an argument for this (Elhaik), several others have brought up counter-evidence (which if you actually read some of it, does not wholly discount a possible Khazar input). In any case, these are hypotheses (I doubt either side has evidence to be conclusive, and I myself would be surprised were there such a monogenesis. We have no direct Khazar DNA evidence of the kind to warrant such a claim, also. So, Galassi, it was some IP asserting as a scientifically established fact that 'Ashkenazim do not in fact come from Khazars'. Does that mean there is no, even what one paper calls a possible 4-5%, Khazar genetic component in Ashkenazim? The phrasing is silly, as its certainties in wiki's neutral voice unacceptable. And no source was adduced.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You are probably referring to Ashkenazi Jews (Germanic or Germanic-speaking Jews) and not Ashkenazim (Germans).GreyShark (dibra) 16:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Khazars/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)