Talk:Khazars/Archive 9

MM your editing on the subpage was generally disgraceful in its induction of poor journalistic sources. I've dropped it because the mess you created, the general illiteracy of your judgements, makes editing there impossible. But now you are tampering ignorantly with a main page that has been stable, and is consensual, for some years. It is bad enough that Galassi broke his topic ban to support your interventions, but you are leaving a carefully constructed page in a patchwork mess of conflicted formatting, and unexplained elisions, with no intelligent edit summaries. You even went so far as to say the sources here had been copied from the other Khazar Hypothesis page, when the exact opposite was what happened. Now you revert again still this article should not be longer/ greater in depth re ash jews than the other article, it should be more brief.

This article, for Chrissake, laid down the essential details that the subpage was created to elaborate on. The subpage can't been expanded because POV pushers like yourself interrupt it so intensively that the expansion is not going to take place. You've wrecked that article. Don't touch this, which is betweenb GA and FA level, until you make proposals on the talk page that other editors can vet and appraise. Like, to cite just one example, taking the knife to one section as follows. You produce:

Maurice Fishberg and Roland B Dixon's works were later exploited in racist and religious polemical literature in both Britain, in British Israelism, and the United States.[252] Particularly after the publication of Burton J. Hendrick's The Jews in America (1923)[253] it began to enjoy a vogue among advocates of immigration restriction in the 1920s; racial theorists[254] like Lothrop Stoddard; anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorists like the Ku Klux Klan's Hiram Wesley Evans;[255] and anti-communist[256] polemicists like John O. Beaty.[257] It played a role in Arab anti-Zionist polemics, and took on an anti-semitic edge.[258] Bernard Lewis, noting in 1987 that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse.[259] It has also played some role in Soviet anti-Semitic chauvinism[260] and Slavic Eurasian historiography, particularly in the works of scholars like Lev Gumilev.[261]

from this

Maurice Fishberg and Roland B Dixon's works were later exploited in racist and religious polemical literature in both Britain, in British Israelism, and the United States.[280] Particularly after the publication of Burton J. Hendrick's The Jews in America (1923)[281] it began to enjoy a vogue among advocates of immigration restriction in the 1920s; racial theorists[282] like Lothrop Stoddard; anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorists like the Ku Klux Klan's Hiram Wesley Evans; anti-communist polemicists like John O. Beaty[283] and Wilmot Robertson, whose views influenced David Duke.[284] According to Yehoshafat Harkabi (1968) and others,[285] it played a role in Arab anti-Zionist polemics, and took on an anti-semitic edge. Bernard Lewis, noting in 1987 that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse.[286] It has also played some role in Soviet anti-Semitic chauvinism[287] and Slavic Eurasian historiography, particularly in the works of scholars like Lev Gumilev.[288] Although the Khazar hypothesis never played any major role in anti-semitism,[289][290] and though the existence of a Jewish kingdom north of the Caucasus had formerly long been denied by Christian religious commentators,[291] it came to be exploited by the White supremacist Christian movement [292] and even by terrorist esoteric cults like Aum Shinrikyō.[293]

The bolded stuff is all wiped out from the record. Attribution is suppressed; evidence that ther Khazar theory was not a major factor in anti-Semitism is erased; the connection with White Christian supremicism cancelled: Who recoups it for the other page? All of that arduously documented leads to the topic just went down the memory hole, you didn't explain why, you didn't try to transfer it elsewhere while leaving a trace here. That is contempt for what was hard work. All you are doing is making life difficult for other editors. So lay off please, until you learn to be collegial, understand the topic, master the intricacies of editing, and, above all, refrain from barging into articles with massive changes without even a notification of proposals on the talk page. It's frankly barbaric.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1: I would recommend cutting out the “Use in anti-Semitic polemics” and “Genetic studies” totally keep a sentence or two.

• The literature is crammed recently with remarks about both its anti-Semitic use and genetic proofs or disproofs. The lead reflects that, with one of 5 paragraphs noting its various angles. The article necessarily expands on the lead indications. The whole history of attacks on this article, esp. the lead, before it was redrafted and after, comes from POV pushers squabbling, to overplay or underplay this. What we have is the briefest survey of the contentions. As to genetics, all articles on peoples have a genetics section: this is no exception, and it is brief, compared to many other similar articles. The genetics section is 40% of the subpage, and that needs a lot of work.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

2: The history section is also overly bloated no one cares about each scholar from the 1800s or 1900s. Just say it has a long history.

• I presume you mean the history section regarding the Ashkenazi Jews connection? The fact is, most, if not all scholarly sources, lack an account of that history. It's similar to what happened at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. All book sources will tell the reader that there are from 56 to 65 (one recently got to something like 72-3) candidates. The editors there simply did their homework, and cited all candidates in the secondary literature recorded, or emerging in the press, and came up with 86 names. Wikipedia is now the default source for that fact. So too here: most scholarly sources are dated, imprecise, incorrect, because they copy mechanically each other. You won't get that synthesis of the available information elsewhere, at least as yet. MM's brilliant idea was to barrel in and wipe it out. Why? It doesn't exist anywhere, in books, or on the net, and yet here it is securely outlined and closely sourced.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

3: It should be nearer in size to the Crimean Karaite claims section and definitely only one header. This can all be covered in more detail in the other article. This article should just explain the theory not go into minute details about history, antisemitism or genetics.

• The Crimean Karaites have received nowhere near the scholarship the Khazar story has benefited from. Why make Karaites the benchmark? Both wiki articles, on Karaite Judaism aand the Crimean Karaites need the kind of intensive work this underlies this article. They are pathetically out of date, though excellent sources such as those of Mikhail Kizilov are out there, neglected by editors. The point of Wikipedia is not to hammer away at solidly constructed articles, simply because they aren't as bad as inferior hackwork articles on similar topics, but to roll up one's sleeves and bring the rest of the associated articles up to snuff.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

4: We don’t really need to have any POV or change much text to start. Just trim the text and drive readers to other article.

• This article attracts POV fanatics, or meddlers like a parachute dry fly does wary trout. There's always room for improvement, and supplementation as new sources come out, or old sources overlooked are examined. Readers should not be 'driven' anywhere. We have a header with a link to the other article, which however is almost impossible to fix because cranks, either hyperdefensive about Judaism, as though it were the editor's personal trusteeship, or anti-Semites, or anti-Zionists, keep messing with it, and don't lift a finger to simply get the facts right. That article requires loads of work, and why this relatively comprehensive article should be bashed in, truncated, evirated, snipped down, because the other article is in a sorry state is a bewildering question.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

5 I actually find it hard to edit because this is kind an exact duplicate of the other article in miniature.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. I disagree for the reasons given above. The problem is not this Khazar page. The problem is that no editor, other than myself, has cared to try and develop the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry article. The only other editors who touch that page are POV-pushing obsessives. All they need do is take hints from the outline of the material here, and develop it. What, horribly, MM did was to take a hatchet to the page and start hacking out material, so that it was lost. That is contemptible because it deprives future editors of the basic indications conserved here for the development of the other article. For the moment, the material is stable here, and once editors have built the problematical article up on the basis of the pared down notices conserved here, one can reconsider trimming the mother article. To reverse that procedure is to grasp the wrong end of the stick.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Read up on WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, and cease and desist.--Galassi (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The bit about white supremacy was covered in the same sentence with another example, my sentence was much more concise while addressing the main points- white supremacists, russians, arabs, anti-communists. I deleted parts that were nearly identical to the subpage because the subpage is where this information should be, not here. Popular interest should not determine length, rather than what it contributes to the article. It has so much information it distracts from the fact that it's pure speculation, it dominates much of the page. I'll put it this way. Area 51's purpose is a secret but it probably involves highly sensitive aeronautics and weapons development. Most of the article is about the base's history, objective facts. A modest size section is about conspiracies. Compared to the fact that area 51 is known for its conspiracies, particularly about aliens, that's a very small part of the article. That's how it should be. Though these UFO theories are covered in a vast and somewhat diverse corpus of literature, they are not given nearly as much room as the much less satisfying information that "we don't really know what's going on for sure, and they don't want us to". We know nearly nothing 100% about Area 51. Khazars are not quite as mysterious, but for a supposedly powerful empire the lack of info about their culture is enigmatic. The "khazar hypothesis" is more credible than UFO theories, but both involve fantastical thinking and are purely conjectural, with no direct evidence supporting them. "Khazars" talks extrensively about Ashkenazi Jews, who the vast majority of sources say have no genetic ties to the khazars. The word "Jewish" is found 77 times while the word "Turkic" is found only 51 times. We know the Khazars were a Turkic people, and only their upper class (if anyone) converted to judaism. Some khazars were jews for some period of their history, but all khazars were turkic for all of their history. This alone should illustrate well what massively undue weight this hypothesis is given. I'm reverting it back, none of your arguments are convincing and I believe this is a massive improvement to this page. By all means, move this stuff to the khazar theory article. That's where it belongs. Not here. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to copy parts from this word for word and transfer it to that article. I promise I will not intervene until you say the article is finished (unless something is REALLY egregious), but of course I can't speak for other people. You shouldn't edit one page as if it were another because the former isn't followed by the people who frustrate you on the latter. That's avoiding the issue. I know you don't want to get into confrontations and I respect that, but you can't just give up on things you're passionate about. You're part of the fragile equilibrium of wikipedia, without your voice (which I admit I disagree with 95% of the time in jew-related matters) the waters are a bit more choppy.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm 'passionate' about quality, and thoughtfulness. It is the hardest thing in the virtual world of internet composition to achieve a consensual synthesis of a complex, yet controversy-ridden topic. All it needs is thoughtless temerity to make the whole structure crash down like a house of cards. You may disagree with me about 'Jewish' matters (not 'jew' please - just to remind you: I can tell an anti-Semite immediately and unerringly when in English they used 'jew' in that way. If anyone says or writes: 'that's a jew-business', 'he's jew-related,' 'Hollywood's jew-run' etc.etc., the resonance of anti-Semitic innuendoes is ineludibly audible. You didn't, and can't mean that, being Jewish, but you are young and careless about the kinds of precision I insist on, an insistence you call 'passionate'). Your disagreement with me is a disagreement with others in your own community: I've never said anything original on these issues involving Jews that I hadn't learnt from 'Jewish' scholars, whose mastery and intelligence on their own history is sufficient for me to take them as my guides.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My metaphor needs work but you know what I mean. It's a balancing act.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I will work on reducing the overlap and coatrack feel. I will look over MM's changes as well some are POV, give me a few days / weeks.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The theory is about the Ashkenazi not the Khazars. It is a coatrack here. You could just as easily write a massive section about the Crimean Karaites.

If we can agree on the below text or something like this, I will go through and see if anything needs to be moved to the other page and source the aforementioned text.

It has been theorized that the modern Ashkenazi Jews are in a substantial degree descended from the Khazars. The theory has its roots in the ninetieth century, finding support from such scholars as Karl Neumann (1847), Abraham Eliyahu Harkavi (1869) and Ernest Renan (1883). In the mid-20th century it was taken up by some scholars of Jewish history among these are Samuel Krauss (1932) and Salo Wittmayer Baron (1957). But subsequently generally dismissed, do to a lack of evidence, as overly speculative or even a myth by most historians.

The theory found favor in some antisemitism circles particularly in the Christian Identity movement and among Soviet and Russia anti-Semites. Likewise, Arab anti-Zionists used the theory to oppose a Jewish state on racial and historic grounds.

The hypothesis reached a wider non-scholarly audience with the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe in 1976. More recently the theory has reentered the margins of scholarly discourse. Paul Wexler (1993), Shlomo Sand (2010) and Eran Elhaik (2012) have all tried to reground the theory.

Most genetic studies study on Ashkenazi Jews have not found evidence for a direct link between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Khazars. Eran Elhaik claims to have found a substantial shared genetic signature, however his work has been criticized for using inappropriate proxies for the Khazars and for ignoring certain Jewish populations.

Jonney2000 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment.(1) My primary concern is that detailed material here is not simply, as it was by MM, removed and thrown into the memory hole, but that the material of this section, if it needs abbreviation (which I question), be removed without detriment, to the subpage. Your précis is not bad. The issue is whether it can be said that a section of a page needs drastic reduction because it is an example of WP:Coatrack.

(2)

The theory is about the Ashkenazi not the Khazars. It is a coatrack here. You could just as easily write a massive section about the Crimean Karaites.

That is incorrect. The hypothesis is about a theoretical link between the Khazars and the Ashkenazi. Secondly, the policy you mention is as follows:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that (a)ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects

I cannot see where, in the section elaborating on the lead sentences, where this issue is given its historical expansion, there is only a feint at discussing the nominal subject. The nominal subject of the article is the Khazars, the subsection deals with Khazar-Ashkenazi speculations.

The coatrack claim can be empirically verified or disproven by a simple statistical analysis.

• The lead has 377 words 2,547 characters of which
• 60 words 418 characters describe the Khazar-Ashkenazi aspect =15%.

• The space given the history of the Khazars = 8,244 words 53,081 characters
• The space accorded the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory history is 657 words 4,373 characters =8%
• If you add to the latter, as is proper, the subsection on anti-Semitic polemics you get 870 words 5,880 characters, i.e. 11%

All that tells me is that the article has its lead summary and subsections expansion (per WP:LEDE), in this regard, almost perfectly aligned 15/11%. 10% of the article deals with the most frequently debated aspect of the Khazars. One can see this by the following.

Khazars gets 425,000 GITS

Khazars+Ashkenazi gets 74,300 GITS (17%)

Therefore, as a rough index of interest in the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory compared to interest in the Khazars, it would emerge that the former elicits 17% of net space devoted to the two, which means our article, at 8-11% of the topic, is actually very conservative and thus quite the opposite of the result of a coatracking operation.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites also have a long and convoluted history. Which Russian scholars are still debating on the fringe. I could indeed write much about that.

It is not a link between the Khazars and the Ashkenazi in any real substance sense no linked culture or history. The theory postulates that the Khazars provided the biological material for the Ashkenazi. The Russians and other groups could just as easily be including in said section and just as pointlessly.

Its a really simple theory.

Khazars does not equal Khazars+Ashkenazi it is a different topic.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The bolded sentence above is a strawman argument, and neither 1 nor any other editor of this page have every confused the two.

Well, you have an opinion about the theory, as does MM. I don't. The second point, that we could by the same token include the Russians, is flawed: because this, proportionately small, section is not about Ashkenazi origins (that has its page), but about the Khazars+Ashkenazi hypothesis. You seem to approach the matter in terms of a scientific idea of 'this is a fringe, scientifically disproven idea' therefore it merits no serious attention. I was trained in what the French call 'les sciences humaines' which has a different focus, and which had dominated the scholarly literature on the Khazars. In those disciplines, what Nietzsche called the genealogy of ideas is of crucial importance. In the humanities the pursuit of a majority theory does not translate into a mechanical dismissal of the minor hypotheses. Steven Weinberg has a magisterial understanding of the structure of the universe, outlined in several popular works, but in his latest To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science (2015) he goes to great lengths to guide us inside the older, Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories, because they once exercised an influence that, today, is dead. He lives in a world of certainties as to what the real physical structure of the world is, but retains sufficient intellectual curiosity not to ignore the past, but rather illuminate technically its erroneous byways. That is what encyclopedic minds do.Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I deny having any opinion. I was saying that your search result where misleading. Can someone else please weigh in here? Maybe we can have a RFC? I have never done that.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you claimed a policy violation (WP:Coatrack), and as is required, I subjected the claim to analysis. It emerged, at least for me, that the charge of coatracking was a misinterpretation of the policy, and that a statistical analysis of the article's proportions, against a GIT search indicated that the section you challenged is perfectly consonant with WP:Due, indeed somewhat understated. I may be wrong, but I didn't offer my opinion - I made an effort to verify a claim.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that it has a coatrack feel and also that it has huge overlap and overly long. I don’t claim it as a fact it’s a feeling based on what I think and know about the topic.Jonney2000 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. This article was wracked by edit-warring for much of its life by two types of POV pushers, not interesting in the Khazars, but, overwhelmingly in the Khazar-Ashkenazi spin. The anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic editors, mainly IPs, played up the ostensible Khazar connection, as one would expect, to get at the Ashkenazi. Several Jewish editors (who kept thinking of it exclusively as a shady attempt to challenge Israel's legitimacy) countered the offensive by ridiculing any connection. For the record, when I decided to rewrite it, I thought the only way to lower the temperature was (a) to give a full account of the theory, from the serious scholars who had advanced it to the ideologists who spun it polemically for a century;(b) provide a solid survey of the contemporary scholarly consensus, which regards it as a minority view, not proven, but also not entirely discounted, since it has had, and still has, notable defenders. This catered to both, while satisfying neither, in the sense that the anti-Zionists are dissatisfied with (b) and the pro-Zionists discontented with (a). But, the fact is that by giving full coverage, neither could claim their interests were neglected, which was the gravamen of their respective challenges earlier, and it achieved stability. This is why I think the page respects WP:Due, and in its comprehensive coverage of this angle gives no warrant to monothematic POV-pushers of any persuasion.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I really cannot understand the angst being generated here. This is a good article, and I believe it should be left unmolested. It's wording is cautious and it reflects some good current research. I find the Khazar civilization - for it was, and very civilized, as in it's tolerance to other faiths, which is usually an excellent litmus test of the sophistication of a polity - fascinating, and any links to the present Jewish people should be a source of pride, or at least engaged curiosity. Leave it be. As mentioned above by Nishidani, it is actually rather conservative, with comparatively little of the content touching on the adoption of Judaism. Nishidani and others have made an excellent attempt to detoxify this article. But as so often in life Nish, you are buggered if you do, and you are buggered if you don't. Irondome (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This page used to be perpetually at the top of my Watchlist due to persistent edit warring and POV-pushing. Since redevelopment, the page has been stable. WP:RS states that articles should present "all majority and significant minority views" appearing in reliable sources on the subject. This issue is clearly significant, if a minority view, demonstrated by the extensive debate in the literature. The detailed and balanced approach here, as Nishidani points out, has allowed presentation of the issue without continual edit warring. The section takes up a reasonable amount of the article, and I don't see a compelling reason to pare it down. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, mate. If I have to be buggered, I'd prefer to be so having done something in the meantime. It might just offset the pain of being a painful arsehole:() Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Nishidani. And an eye watering metaphor ;) Simon Irondome (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with jonney. This page is about khazars. The khazar hypothesis of ashk. ancestry has its own page. Personally I think my edit was a big improvement. Right now it has way too much info, which is undue.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your evisceration was hardly an improvement MM. An attack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT methinks. --- Preceding comment: 01:33, 10 June 2016‎ Irondome (talk | contribs)‎

The proper procedure is to present Proposals here for discussion before making changes to the article. That had been proceeding well until you have now begun editing the article without engaging in discussion. You are instead side-stepping the process and arguing in edit summaries, exactly what this thread was set up to avoid. This is clearly disruptive, and you are now edit warring as well. Please propose and discuss changes and gain consensus before editing the article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE WEIGHT methinks. Anyway you're misusing the word "disruptive". I wasn't edit warring. I reverted simon's reversion because his rationale made no sense. I deleted no sources.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Both I and MM are discussing this. No drama and nothing to get stressed about. Now we are de-escalating. I am sure we all want the best for this article. There is no edit-warring at this time and nor will there be any. There is nothing to see here. Regards to all. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yay :) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Since massive proposals are being made for an article that has a fairly finished form, and the result is edit warring, following Jonney's sensible revert, which restores the text as it was before this kerfuffle, and should be the basis for proposals from here on in and offer, I think the rational course is for editors proposing changes to place them, one by one, in an orderly manner, here for discussion. Feel welcome to do so. It is virtually impossible to handle the merits of any one change, if it comes in a bundle of a dozen, and therefore we should do this piecemeal, as the article was done. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jonney said he's looking over my changes. It's much less complicated than it seems. I really just made it more compact.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This article, though I confess I did a lot of the work, was written over several months, consensually, supervised and checked by several editors known for their independent judgement. Large scale edits thrown at it, without discussion, is not the usual way one contributes to stable articles that have been written according to the strictest editing protocols: Doing them suggests that everyone has stuffed up but the newby. That is why each edit change should be listed, proposed, and analysed before proceeding. A lot of work has gone into a delicate balancing act to mediate source opinion differences, and that may not be visible. Fresh eyes are always useful, but nothing is gained by impetuous alterations on scale.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• (1)I would suggest to remove this section from this page (keeping it elsewhere is fine) because this theory has no serious scientific support, as should be clear from discussion on the main page about the theory.My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a fundamental wiki policy not to write 'the truth' but to summarize the scholarship on a topic, covering all main features, in a neutral fashion. It is immaterial whether the KHAO (Khazar Hypothesis of Ashkenazi Origins) reflect a core of historic truth or is a myth. It is material to the article that this hypothesis has had an intimate connection with the subject of the article, and indeed, has been one of the spurs to the intense research of the Khazars in modern scholarship. This is not a matter of 'science' but of humanistic scholarship, which has other criteria.Technically, I cannot see how one can remove this byway without suppressing a notable part of the history of the Khazars in Jewish, Western and Oriental scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• (2)MM introduced these changes, not caring to try to persuade anyone before doing so.

• First she touched the lead, and leads in consensually written, long stable articles are not supposed to be arbitrarily fiddled with by whimsical editors jumping into the page.
• Secondly she altered the lead to read ‘though it is not corroborated by historical sources,’ citing Kizilov’s book without regard to the default citational formatting used on the page.
• Thirdly her link to Kizilov is to p.5, where no such statement is made.(Mikhail Kizilov, [1]
• Fourthly, the correct link should have been to the same book Mikhail Kizilov, The Karaites of Galicia: An Ethnoreligious Minority Among the Ashkenazim, the Turks, and the Slavs, 1772-1945, BRILL, 2009 p.284 n.62.

This is Kizilov’s (informed) view. I think that selectively phrased to support what is his decided POV. By ‘historical source’ he means ‘an old primary source that indicates Ashkenazis thought, or were believed to be, of Khazar origin’. Unfortunately, by phrasing it that way, Kizilov is making impossible demands on the historian.

History doesn’t work that way, i.e. he is making one of the most fundamental errors imaginable for an historian, since that is an argumentum ex silentio. Throughout all known fields of historical enquiry, we are doomed to work by definition conjecturally because most primary sources do not tell us what we wish to know. Historical corroboration is almost never in primary sources of this kind but is rather a matter of hypothesis, in evaluating traces, archaeological, epigraphic, textual, linguistic, and genetic, and making informed inferences from them, to fill in what the record fails to tell us. By Kizilov's same token, the various theories of the origins of the Karaites or even the origin of the term are not corroborated by any historical source and are purely conjectural, yet on pp.5f., he comes firmly down on the side of the Semitic/Hebrew origin. I.e. the principle of skepticism rigorously applied to the Khazar theory is dropped with the Karaite theories.

Kizilov for this is also somewhat dated: 2 attempts have been made after the date that book was written to provide some scientific grounding for the conjecture, and since his comment predates those two articles, it cannot be used to sum up the argument in 2016.

• Fifth, what you did is what you try to do in many articles dealing with controversies, i.e. you find a source which says something definitive, to bury the minority view as a 'fantasy' and by implication insinuate into a lead or elsewhere the idea that any scholar, scientist or whoever promotes that view has delusional problems. Wikipedia deplores such attempts to violate WP:NPOV by the selective use of sources to assert a 'truth'.

In other words, in very good sources, you can, MM, find some phrase that will tickle your POV fancy, but it cannot be brandished as a 'truth' as opposed to a scholar's informed opinion, as you did in your edit, esp. when, as per above, Kizilov (and he very rarely slips up in his wonderful books) dropped his methodological guard and used slipshod language. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not deleting any information (except mention of antizionism/antisemitism but whatever). I'm adding info, namely, how it is not historically corroborated and isn't substantiated by genetic studies. I did delete wexler saying "most are skeptical", but that's not information in its own right, its just a way of framing the debate, but it shouldn't be framed by the minority. Thus I can't see reversions of this as being anything but WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's distressing to see you hammer away, in patent defiance of a rough consensus on method here, with provocative (and what is a basically ignorantly know-all approach to historical subjects of some interpretative intricacy) editing. The method to be adopted was to make a proposal, and subject it to discussion, in order that editors here might be able to evaluate its merits. No. You just ignored that, and rebarged in, hacking away. So just drop the aggression, and try for once to discuss with people before asserting yourself, please. It's embarrassing. You may have good reason to doubt my bona fides, but it is distinctly ugly to see you forcing the hand of a mentor as neutral, and as even-handed, as Simon. I'm sure he dislikes being put on to do revert you in this way. It's not his style, and if he does so, you should take it that you are overstepping the mark.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It pains me to be at odds with simon.... ugh. I'm getting too desperate.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a major problem with using Simon Szyszman. It is widely believed that Avraham Firkovich falsified documents. Szyszman does not accept this and has been heavily criticized. I am nervous using Szyszman at all, I see that he is used a few time in the article.

The whole Karaite topic is a massive minefield. Which needs to be navigated with care.

See 425-428

Mikhail Kizilov, The Sons of Scripture: The Karaites in Poland and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2015 pp.427ff.

Jonney2000 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the Karaite field is a minefield, and I noted while adding Simon Szyszman that he was problematical for many things. But the use to which I put him has nothing to do with the forgeries of Abraham Firkovich, but rather with a primary source (Benjamin Nahawandi) cited by Abraham Harkavy, a source which exists independently of all those figures. Harkavy's 1871 text was cited, but unverifiable, and Szyszman was referring to it, saying exactly what Harkavy reported, in a verifiable manner.

A lot of articles in this area need thorough revision (I once intended repeating with the Pechenegs, and indeed all the medieval Turkic tribes, what I did with the Khazars, to chip in if you think it worth your overhauling it.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I have always been interested in the Huns and other groups on the edge of Western Civilization. I don’t have any great knowledge about them. What knowledge I have of the Huns relates to the roman empire.

The Dark Ages are obscure to me nonetheless I enjoy reading such things.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a fascinating subject, indeed. If you're not familiar with it, may I recommend Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road,? A very good overview. I did intensive graduate research on that area before I was distracted into other subjects. It's now getting the attention it deserves. One reason I did a Russian course was to read the extraordinarily extensive Russian ethnological literature on this vast congeries of peoples and their history. regards. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting read will check it out.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Eldad ha-Dani could have been the source for Prester John, not sure if it fits in the article.

Eldad ha-Dani could have been semi-historic or non-historic and the date is uncertain. But could be correct. It is a messianic text, so some of his stuff can be sourced to earlier texts and he was used by later texts.

Page 455-459

https://books.google.com/books?id=eKceGfr-al4C&pg=PA459&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani++Prester+John&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw97vYpaHNAhXD8CYKHf4EBMQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=Eldad%20ha-Dani%20%20Prester%20John&f=false

page 44

https://books.google.com/books?id=i8NKBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani+date&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRjJGXqKHNAhVIJiYKHWYzBQUQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=mid-twelfth%20&f=false

page 200

https://books.google.com/books?id=TO6q6Je0r24C&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Eldad+ha-Dani+messianic+text&source=bl&ots=lImS7IJMfb&sig=n-rS75u_htpoOzVmFRWEiP5XM3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5g97uq6HNAhXHTCYKHQ-cCEcQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=Eldad%20ha-Dani%20messianic%20text&f=false

Jonney2000 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I was prompted to add him here, because in the sub-article on the hypothesis I saw he was mentioned there but the source used did not mention the Khazars, and therefore it was WP:OR. Looking into it, I discovered several sources on the Khazars that mention him, and the fact that the texts attributed to him refer to the Khazars. So I have added that here. Given the problems with ha-Dani, we should keep an eye on that date for his presence in Spain. No doubt there is a complex specialist technical literature on these issues, but I haven't yet accessed or looked at any of it and we can alter things if or when fresher information arrives.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very cautious about Prester John. I think he's a mythical figure. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would love to make this article less of a coat rack....--Monochrome_Monitor 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the eleventh century Bereshit Rabbati by Moses ha-Darshan is the first of the Eldad texts which mentions Chaldeans, a few different spelling variants exist. This is taken by some as a reference to the Khazars.

The Khazar Correspondence also has an inquiry about the descendent of Dan likely referring to Eldad ha-Dani. I need to look into it more.@Nishidani:Jonney2000 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This is really worth some investigation, and the page would benefit if you could, with due patience, throw light on the mystery. It is indeed curious that Ha-Dan is cited in secondary sources as mentioning Khazars when, as you remark, it would appear the reference is to Chaldaeans. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, given your deep knowledge of the topic, I was wondering whether you think we could do with an article on Karaites as opposed to Karaite Judaism? Any community with such a long and diversified history, that can boast of the highest advanced literacy level of any other group in the world, surely deserves a people's history? Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Historically Karaites consider themselves to be Jews, both sides regarding the other as heretics. With lots of nasty polemics exchanged. Many Karaites did study under rabbinic teachers and learned rabbinic texts even when those teachers where openly anti-Karaite.

“Two Names of the First Khazar Jewish Beg,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Vol. 10 pp. 241

“Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Vol. 10 is currently checked out and overdue. So I cannot read Shapira’s argument, about the Chaldeans. Or what texts he used.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My point was that we have many articles on particular Jewish communities with their own traditions, but with the Karaites we subsume that under the religion, uniquely, except with the geographical specificator of those in Crimea (Crimean Karaites). That article does indeed extend to the Karaites generally, but I don't know why the subgroup of Karaites deserves a separate page, while the Karaites themselves are subsumed under the concept of religion. It's only niggling at an adventitious taxonomy for wiki articles on this area, and perhaps not important. Shapira is always a fund of insight. Look forward to getting word of the argument he makes there. Thanks for the research-Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a borderline case worth discussing. The cited source, describing James Keegstra’s version of the Ashkenazim-Khazar equation, says “… as descendants of the Khazars, a Hunnish, Mongolian people with savage instincts, modern Ashkenazic Jews possess the racial traits of their ancestors and must not be trusted ….” The implied antisemitism clearly consists in associating Jews with ‘barbarous’ invaders. Now whether or not this represents anti-Turkism depends on two questions AFAICT: the Turkishness of Huns and Mongols, and the relevance of the negative stereotype where used as a premise. On the first point, well, maybe: although it‘s not (I believe) strictly correct to call them Turkish—and the Huns seem to have been somewhat heterogenous—our article does discuss historical conflicts with both peoples as background for Chinese anti-Turkism (without references, I note). I have more doubts about the second point: the slur certainly presumes a bigoted attitude toward Central Asians, but throwing Jews into the mix doesn’t in itself add anything—in other words it’s a form of WP:SYNTH to interpret the making of the connection as targeting Turks, at least without a more explicit source. @Editor2020: since you asked the question, what are your thoughts?—Odysseus1479 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you cite the precise line in the text you think problematical. James Keegstra is only mentioned in an article in a footnote.Nishidani (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I’m referring to the (rather clumsy) very recent addition, now reverted with a question in the ES, of “antiTurkism” immediately after “antisemitism“ in the last sentence of the lead, so presumably claiming support from the same footnote. The quotation above is the only passage I found likely to be adduced to that end.—Odysseus1479 07:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well Editor2020's revert there is quite correct. I don't think it needs any justification or defence. Sorry for missing this.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I’m not questioning the reversion (or I‘d probably have undone it); I was just taking the edit as a hint for a potential slight improvement in the article’s neutrality. Boiling the racist claim down to “Jews are evil (and have no business in Palestine) because they’re really Turks“, that‘s presumably just as offensive to Turks as it is to Jews, even if not aimed at them, so to speak. Does that deserve consideration? Is there undue focus on antisemitism where it’s just part of a generally bigoted attitude?—Odysseus1479 09:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how you would discuss this without going quite far from the topic of this specific article, and not sure we would find a source for it, as opposed to just making the statement ourselves?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Turks as the object of animosity because of the extreme fringe crap by some ignoble antisemitic jerk in Canada, is it, rehashing a dopey piece of bullshit dated to the early 1900s. For Turks, there is nothing offensive in an association with Khazars, at least to judge from what an informed Turkish friend told me recently. In the obscure byways of anti-Semitic rantings, the association is demeaning (which historically in Jewish historiography it wasn't: Turkey took in Jews when the Spanish monarchy expelled them etc.) because it makes, as you note, an overlap between the barbarous Turks and the civilized Jews Just as an aside, if the Jews were Turks, which they ain't, they'd have more solid claims to Palestine than Zionists, since the Turks had ruled the country continuously for 4 centuries right down to the modern period. Just in case you think this last judgement odd, I had in mind:

In retrospect it is all too easy to point out the Arab blunders, their missed opportunities, their intransigence. It is only just, however, to note that it is easy to urge compromise of another’s principle, to urge someone else to give up half a loaf of his own bread. Surely, the Arab argument had much justice. Shorn of biblical quotations, emotional references to the “final solution,” and loaded statistics, the Zionist case looks no stronger, and probably somewhat weaker, than the Arab case to disinterested observers. To the Arabs the demand for an Arab Palestine seemed neither novel nor extreme; it seemed just and in accordance with international practice. That there were two competing “rights” all agreed; but that what had been the feebler, the minority, position could be chosen seemed incredible, Whittled down to basics, the Zionist position was that, given the Palestine dilemma, they would settle for half whereas the Arabs unfairly continued to demand all. It was ingenious, it was evil, and its threw the entire Arab argument into the wrong frame of reference. More devastating, still, It proved effective J. Bowyer Bell, The Long War:Israel and the Arabs since 1946, Prentice Hall 1969 p.67. also cited William B. Quandt, Paul Jabber, Ann Mosely Lesch (eds.) The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism, University of California Press, 1973 p.46 Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After beginning a re-read of the lede, I noticed the same word spelled two different ways. So I changed Kaganate to the more used Khaganate. Then after the edit I noticed we actually had three different ways of spelling the same word - Kaganate, Khaganate and Qaganate. Please could we agree on one way of spelling throughout this article? Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Qaganate Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Qaganate Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The unsettled spelling is caused by historical reasons, of which WP has no control. Different authors of various publications recited spelling of their sources, thus the Arabic Khagan and Khakan/Khakhan, the French Qagan, the Turkic and Rusian Kagan, and a quite a few more. In such cases the native spelling is the WP preference, but in citations the spelling of the original is OK to retain, except for cases where spelling is really oddball (e.g. Xakan of P. Golden, where the Russian X stands for Kh). A member of the community, versed in terminological editing and in Turkic history, would one day help in reconciling all vernacular spellings with the native spelling. WP does not have an obligation to accurately phoneticize vernacular spellings of the diverse sources. The WP tolerance is probably driven by a desire to minimize the unending terminological wars. Barefact (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We have an obligation to render this article encyclopaedic, improve its quality and maintain consistency throughout for the reader. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Barefact is not happy that I removed their addition to this article and placed it in the Kangar Union article (which they created some time ago). I did write a message about the removal and move on their talk page, but did not discuss it here on Khazar talk page first. Their addition to this article contained no references apart from textual mentions of two authors, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th century CE) and Gardezi (Abu Sa'id 'Abd al-Ḥayy Gardizi, 11th century). My original google search found large portions of the added text were plagiarised from turkicworld.org, which was my original reason for removing such a large addition of unsourced material to this article. Barefact says that the wording is their own, and that they use this site for their notes, and that they provided references by mentioning Constantine Porphyrogenitus (CP) and Gardezi which should be sufficient. In my original note I asked them to cite their sources for this addition. As I said, I had originally thought the problem with this addition was of plagiarism, but after Barefact complained about the removal, I can see now with a little more research that there's a problem with substantial POV/content forking across early-late Eurasian medieval history in Wikipedia. POV/content forking problems have already had several mentions on their user talk page. Perhaps this POV/content forking is caused by a difference in terminologies used by the source material which Barefact reads. I don't have time to go through the entire Eurasian pre/history series checking for sources, content and POV forks at present. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To summarise:

• The wording of the addition by Barefact appears elsewhere on the turkic.org site. Their addition was also uncited. I removed because I thought it was plagiarised, then I realised that there was already an article on the Kangar Union, so placed the entire text there. I didn't think the entire addition as it stood belonged in this article without any citations.
• I now realise that this addition to the article is also a POV/content fork of Pechenegs Westward_migration. It's not the first time that Barefacts has forked (eg Kangly deletion history of former Kangly article, recreated Nov 2008 by Enerelt, expanded by Barefacts, again, with no references provided past the lede). I placed a references required template on the Kangar Union article for the moved text, and where the WP:FORK problems begin. I haven't placed a fork template yet. I'm not familiar with how to raise the fork issue having never experienced that before. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I ask that @Barefact: please provide citations as per WP:CITE and WP:VER, from a source that is recognised academic work by specialists on the Khazars, following the style of this page which is to include quotes from the reference in the notes as well as the source, for the part of thei addition which relates to the Khazars:

  The forceful influx of Kangars and their allied tribes seriously impacted Khazar populations with destruction of settlements and population, and the population mass escape to safer areas to the north and south, and the Magyars of Lebedia to the west. The Kangar tribal Union, better known in Europe as Pechenegs under a Slavic name of their subject allies, occupied a large swath of Khazaria extending from Don in the east to Pannonia in the west. Between the rivers Yaik and Emba, they controlled the Khazar trading route from Itil to Khorezm, dealing a hard blow to the Khazarian trade. The North Pontic Kangar state eventually established coexistent with Khazaria, while dominating North Pontic area of Khazaria from ca. 750 to ca. 900.

  I do think that some of this material is already mentioned in the article, but using Pechenegs instead of 'Kangars and allied tribes' or 'Kangar tribal Union'. The rest of the material seems to relate to the 'Kangars' and I leave it to other editors to comment on whether they think it belongs here in full or in part. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

One would think that a person embarking on editing the article and removing not just the cited contents, but a whole page from the history of the subject, would be concerned about the sanity of the article as a whole, rather than using technicalities and lawyering to justify the removal. The outright removal is definitely incendiary, it egregiously violates the WP practices, both procedurally and contextually. Ignorance can't be used as a justification, it is a mantra known from the elementary school.

I also object to the mentality underlying the language. Who are "they" in the vindicatory justification? I stand on my own, and the use of the concept of "they do" is disrespectful to the brother editors, a violation diminishing to that editor. No piling of POV, plagiarism, and the like wanton accusation would provide a cover for the wrongful action, it rather shows that the editor has an agenda where badmouthing a fellow editor is just a tool of trade.

The removal of the newly added section removes a chance for other editors to comment, improve, and complete the section. That's how WP works, allowing time and space for discussion to come to a consensus. A blatant removal violates the WP spirit, procedures, and practices of WP. In WP practices, a need for reference is marked with a template, and some templates remain for years, giving editors chances to fill in the gaps, and laying a path for eventual removal.

WP survives on expanding its worthiness by sharing knowledge from different branches. I did translate the Kangar Union into English, making a contribution appreciated by the WP community. I did not author the original article in Russian, nor participated in the life of the translated article, which should have and did gain its own life in the English WP. I fail to see how any WP brother editor would try to turn my contribution into something nefarious. Any WP editor, and especially an editor who attempts to administer an article recognizing his or her own limitations, an editor who is either ignorant of the main events in the life of the people subject of the article, or pursues an agenda unrelated to the objectives of the article, should greet instead of badmouthing such contributions.

Acting in a good faith, I explained my objections to the remover, and requested that the section was restored. I explained that moving the impact on Khazars from the Khazar article to the Kangar article does not make any sense. I also acknowledged that the Khazar Union article should be amended to address the impact of the Kangar state migration into the Khazar territories. I patiently waited for a meaningful response. Restoration should have been as quick as was the removal reaction. I do expect that the section would be restored in a good faith, desirably by the remover, or a decent explanation on why an event that cut the Khazar state into two, that irreversibly seized 1/3 of the Khazar territory, that separated Khazars from nearly all of their tributaries, that portended to their ensuing demise, should be removed from the contents of the article. Barefact (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Barefact, First of all, let's be clear. The material you added was completely uncited.You mentioned two sources only. When you have shown your sources/ciations for "an event that cut the Khazar state into two, that irreversibly seized 1/3 of the Khazar territory, that separated Khazars from nearly all of their tributaries, that portended to their ensuing demise" and for the text you added to this article which now resides in the Kangar Union, then we can talk about including what has not already been mentioned in the Khazars article, providing that it uses the same terminology that has already been used throughout this article. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am "concerned for the sanity of the article as a whole". I am concerned for its WP:INTEGRITY and that's why I removed your unsourced edit, of which only a part related to Khazars, the remainder is related to the Pechenegs, to the Qanglï Kangly and to the Kangar people which redirects[2] , incorrectly, to Kangly. And then there is another major problem in that 8th century Kangju is also an existing article on the newer material discussed in Kangar Union. Perhaps a better redirect for Kangar people would be to Kangju or we should consider improving Kangar Union then merging with Kangju. At the very least the statements linking the two people Kangly and Kangar people need to be disambiguated. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that if you cut & paste your own material from your own site at turkic.org, then please ensure you add the sources from which you obtained the material, as per WP:CITE.Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It was not a blatent removal, since first I added a 'section unreferenced' template, and then I left a message on your talk page, and I moved the material to Kangar Union, which is likely a POV & content fork with the Pechenegs and Kangar People articles because some of the material is already covered in Pechenegs, and also in Khazars. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have mentioned to you that adding swathe of uncited text is a problem, and I mentioned it specifically to you on your talk page this because it is something that will need addressing. I am not blaming you for a POV/content fork. I am not "trying to turn your contribution into something nefarious". I specifically mention that perhaps there is a difference in terminologies used between the source material you obtained the Kangar Union material from, and the source material used for Khazars and Pechenegs in the English wikipedia.Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important that the source is provided for material added and the citations are made in the style that is used on this article by the editor who makes the edit. If the editor does not know where their material came from, perhaps it ought not to be added to this article at all. Although this article is not a biography of a living person WP:BLP, there are many considerations when writing the history of a past people. I think some extra care is required, especially since there may be people today who derive their histories from some of the past peoples mentioned in this and related articles. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This article uses the Harvard no brackets citation style, and adding the reference within the subsection References. If you need help with this, please say. For example:

According to Sinor, the ethnonym-used-in-this-article made an action that led to Z.{{harvnb|Sinor|1990}}. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is well sourced throughout. It would detract from the spirit which this article has been edited thus far to add large amounts of unsourced text, especially when some of those events are already discussed in the article, albeit using different ethnonyms. It is also not verifiable that Kangar are the Kangly. I think that's from Gumilev, and there are some problems with using his work. Perhaps not a discussion for this particular talk page. Unless you can provide the source for the extent of the Kangar Union (it may have reached the Ural, it may have not), then I don't see why it should be added to this article. Similarly, Do you know how the Kangar union with the Pechenegs came about or how far West the Kangar-Pecheneg union extended? There's no way of finding out, because you don't give any sources or citations. Thus, if you want to restore the text, then please provide the sources and citations for each of the theories/historical facts made in the text you addded. Thank you very much. 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Luther Blissetts (talk)

Thanks for reply, it is better to discuss than to rush with demolition. Now, and only if you happened not to know it, our only, and highly respectable source is the De Administrando Imperium, which I cite verbatim. All info on the Kangars, which apparently is the subject your preoccupation, that is the names of the tribes, their social status of ruling and dependents, their geographical location, their spread, are known only from the De Administrando Imperium. Brackets, formatting of the citation etc. is irrelevant to the contents, and you have deleted contents and not the brackets. If you can improve on brackets etc., please do that and don't ask for my permission. To say that facts are unreferenced is a ridiculous excuse, with 2 (two) verbatim citations. To accuse Constantine Porphyrogenetus in POV is more than ridiculous. He did not have a clue that 1000 years later somebody is going to an editing war to segregate Kangars from Kangly. You should not have raised the subject of Kangly/Kangar, that shows the donkey's ears, what your removal is all about, it is not the Khazar history, not the Khazar fate, its is a patriotic war for possessing of Kangly/Kangars, a war that I do not want to participate in. In that respect, you (probably innocently) have done a disservice to the article. All your arguments about sourcing and formatting do not hold when you throw away a baby with the water. You can start a war on Kangar Union, if you want, on Kangly/Kangar, if you want, but to assert that to lose 1/3 of the country is not a big deal is nonsense. This is not a case of Alsace-Lorraine or Sudetenland, it is a case of Pétain France complete with a wholesale relocation of the Kangar Union population into the occupied territory. If you assert that you can move a whole state from place to place without impacting the local state, its structure, and its population, who would take your assertion seriously? I can't believe that a WP editor would rather have correct brackets than the correct facts. Let us restore the deletion, and then you can mark up anything that you like, give other editors a chance to contribute and discuss, and I on my side promise you my full cooperation in resolving your (and others) template markups. That includes the "plagiarism" that you have found objectionable. I do not have problems rephrasing my phrases, if needed be, while retaining the full content of the subject.

You have shown a great disrespect to your fellow editor. This is not how WP works. You disrespected my time and effort, in essence discouraging me from contributing to WP and to the article in particular. You motions of the post-factum notice are a sham. Instead of planning next improvement, on the migration of the Oguzes and Kipchaks into the Khazar territory, which are grossly missing from the "well sourced throughout" article. You have noticed "well sourcing", but did not get that major events are completely missing, and without them the "well sourcing" is not worth anything, it is an empty shell of a myth. WP can do better. Barefact (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Barefact, I am reading through your reply (thank you) and you did provide two sources, one primary, and one secondary which uses a later edition of an earlier source. If your addition was as you say, verbatim citations from those sources, then they need to be within quote marks "verbatim quote" and then you need to provide the cite for those verbatim additions using WP:CITE as your guide. It is not for me or any other editor to go through four volumes of De Administrando Imperium to find out where your verbatim quotes come from. I have accused Constantine Porphyrogenetus of nothing at all, but since you mention it, it's worth noting that he did have a POV. Luther Blissetts (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just asked you to provide the citations as per WP:CITE. I am also not engaging in an "editing war with you to segregate Kangars from Kangly" (time has already separated the two ethnonyms from each other and the relation between the two is not clear cut). I am just pointing out to you that they are not the same peoples, as discussed in many authoritative sources. I have no intention of "starting a war on Kangar Union". I have not thrown away your baby - it is in the Kangar Union article you created, awaiting your addition of verifiable citations for its content regarding "Kangar migration and the North Pontic Kangar state". Luther Blissetts (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Other editors are able to contribute and discuss the removal of your new subsection and text to Kangar Union on this talk page. There is no need to reinstate the unreferenced "verbatim" Kangar migration and the Nort Pontic Kangar state which repeats some of the information already provided in this article - information which is supported by verified notes and citations and is written in encyclopaedic style, albeit these mentions use different ethnonyms to your addition. I have not disrespected your time and effort - your addition is still on wikipedia. At this point, I can see that I am just repeating the reasons why your new subsection was removed to Kangar Union. It is the role of the editor who adds information to ensure that the information is relevant , verified and clearly cited. Luther Blissetts (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Luther, thanks for changing your tone. Your repeated assertion on the "Kangar Union article you created" is not accurate, translation is not a creation. Your assertion that the Kangar intervention is reflected in the article is not accurate. The only indication is shown on the map, without a single comment on how the change had occurred, which is the subject of my edit. Comparison of the maps "before" and "after" show the changes, compare the map of the Kangar Union, the "The Pontic steppes, c. 1015". Kangar disappeared, in its place is the Oguz Yabgu state. Khazaria disappeared, in its place are some mysterious "Pecheneg Khanates". I will not go into the accuracy or credibility of the map. This change needs a section, with more or less details, I compiled it in a skeleton form, as an initial entry, which is used as a seeding only. That is, I offered editors to add as many details as they would find necessary. To close this dispute, I suggest the proven method of presenting points in an unbiased fashion, on the Talk page. First, you would copy my edit right here, equip it with your templates showing specific comments, including those you found "plagiarized". That is, instead of generic declarations I need to know specific changes to make. Next, I will post here a revised version, and if you agree to it, it will go into the article, and gain its own happy life. This way we can close the issue fast and constructive. We should have done this to begin with. We need not get involved in patriotic wars. Regards, Barefact (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Barefact. I am going to say this just one last time.

* Please do not add material to this article which is unreferenced. Not as a seeding, not as an initial entry, not as anything. If you add unreferenced material to this article it will be removed. If you want to work on the material you added, please use your sandbox and present it once more when you have brought it up to the standards required both of wikipedia and the style of this article. It is the responsibility of the editor to support their addition of material following wikipedia policies. It is not the responsibility of other editors to verify your addition of a new subsection and material when there are so many problems with it. There is an excellent reference list at the bottom of the article which you may find useful.

* There is no need for a new section. Again, the events you you added are mainly covered in this article using different ethnonyms. The way to the add material you say is not mentioned is to find the section in the article where it should be mentioned, and then add it, with WP:VER citations following the style of this article, then add the reliable reference for that citation in the references part of the article.

* There is nothing mysterious about the eight Pecheneg provinces in CP's DAI, in existence c.50 years by the time of his writing c.948-952. Also, at the time of his writing, Khazaria is clearly still in existence, so it has not 'disappeared' either and it has not been replaced by the 'mysterious Pecheneg territories'. There are many scholarly books and papers that discuss the forced migration of Pechenegs to the territory then occupied by the Het-Magyar/Qabar and their subsequent formation of eight provinces which occupied (approximately) the land of the Dnieper and Don basins, bounded in the north by the Rus, and to the south by the Sea of Azov. There is also extensive discussion in these sources of the relationship of the Het-Magyar, Kabar and the Pecheneg to the Khazar empire, and I ask that you both cite and refer to them.

* There is often a problem when discussing a WP:PRIMARY source such as CP's DAI. It is preferrable to refer to the secondary sources who mention CP's DAI, written by scholars who are recognised experts in this field of enquiry to avoid WP:OR.

* The specific changes that you need to make to the material that you wish to add is to provide scholarly citations as is the style of this article, using reputable, secondary sources. By all means, post a revised version here on the talk page.

* I am not engaged in a patriotic war.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone wrote that the Arabs "poured" into Khazaria and defeated them. I replaced this with Peter Golden's version from Khazar Studies, 1980. It says that Marwan entered Khazaria on the grounds of seeking a truce, and then launched a suprise attack on them.

I also removed the unreferenced last sentence of this paragraph. It said the conversion to Judaism, if it happened around this time, may have been an assertion of independence from the Arabs. My understanding is that the Khazars were never really conquered by the Arabs because of geographical barriers. Furthermore the only assertion that poses this timeframe, that I have ever heard, is that a Muslim (Marwan?) said to him, you must convert to a Abrahamic religion, you can choose which one. I am actually really in a theory of a conversion in this time frame, but not the one that was here with no citation.(unsigned)

What you removed as unsourced, can easily be sourced. It was explained as a hypothesis. I've restored it with Christopher Beckwith's remarks. The standard practice in a text that has been worked intensively, is to post a ^{[citation needed]} tag as a courtesy to editors. Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Was not the Khazar empire a second Silk Road? Merchants went through it instead of going on the Silk Road? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.44.179 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khazars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929030018/http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=457&rsid=478 to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=457&rsid=478

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@186.124.201.241: Please explain why something is a speculation, the provided website contains only scientific information.--82.137.111.203 (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the ancient DNA study published in Advances in Anthropology. This is a predatory journal and is not a reliable source. One of the authors Anatole Klyosov is known for his pseudoscientific publications on this subject.Dahliarose (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Very unclear to me why user Laszlo Panaflex came to use the term "deceptive edit" to justify undoing my edit.

a) I added a paragraph break where I believe it makes better grammatical sense, and

b) I made tense correction in a sentence, with the following change;

"In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that [...] Ashkenazi Jews ARE genetically descended from [...]"

to

"In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that [...] Ashkenazi Jews WERE genetically descended from [...]"

First I'd like to point out Wikipedia's own article Be bold which says "Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. "

Second regarding my grammer change itself, here are 3 sources to illustrate "were" being correct in this context;

The Telegraph, which has strict grammatical standards: "almost two out of three modern European men ... were descended from just three Bronze Age males"

The NLT Bible, per Google Books: "Two clans were descended from Joseph" Numbers 26:28

Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History, 1906, Volumes 28-29 p46 per Google Books: "The Castleton people used to say that the Bradwell people were descended from convicts"

We can certainly discuss grammar, but "deceptive"??? This is the kind of thing that puts new editors totally off contributing. If I need to provide 3 citations to justify a simple grammar change then good luck with Wikipedia ever getting out of the status quo morass it is currently stuck in!

Perhaps someone with more experience can explain what I have came up against here? Refinnej1964 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit discouraged about replying to your grammatical argument, because your question is solecistic.'what I have came' is impossible English.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) the Telegraph is no guide to good grammar. To the contrary, the truncated snippet cited is poor usage (I haven't checked the original), and reads as an example of ineptness. It implies 2/3 of 'modern' (to this day) Europeans are no longer descended from 2 or 3 Bronze Age males as they used to be. The other two are irrelevant- 'Used to say' obliges the following 'were,' because the belief is historic. The Ashkenazi are a vibrant modern community and what was said of them is still said of them in some quarters, hence 'are.'Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Refinnej1964: You do not recount my reason fully here. I stated it was a "deceptive edit summary." Your edit summary stated "Add paragraph break," when you were also making a substantive change by deleting the word "genetically." This passage of the article is subject to much controversy and is frequently changed or deleted entirely. It appeared that you were using an innocuous looking edit summary to hide that you were also changing the substance. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to edit this article so as to tone down some of the WP:NPOV issues (or what I perceive to be a POV issue); however, it seems that if I continue to do so that an edit war is going to erupt, so, instead of initiating one, I am going to bring up the point here.

As I read through the lead, everything seemed objective until I read the end: "In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jews descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany. This theory still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with scepticism.[24][25] The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism[26] and anti-Zionism.[27]" First of all, I think it is a little peculiar that the loaded word "antisemitism" appears in the lead of an article that is dedicated to a nation that existed for almost 400 years. Anti-Zionism, I can understand, since it would discredit the claim of Israelis that they are merely "returning home" rather than conquering the Palestinians. And, though it is true that some anti-Zionists do have anti-Jewish sentiment as well, to me, it seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV to throw the loaded word anti-semitism here. It is, after all, a historical article. According to WP:NPOV, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

Read the two sources attached to this sentence and you'll see that one of them is just a line from this book on linguistics by Paul Wexler and the other is actually an article in which an Israeli-born geneticist claims that the theory that Ashkenazi Jews did originate from Israeli is, in fact, bogus. Is he anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist? There's no evidence to show that in the article. Personally, I understand that Ashkenazi Jews do not like this theory about the Khazars because it undermines their "Homeland" claim and, also, I understand that opponents of Israelis can use it for this purpose, but don't you think it's a little propagandistic to suggest (as this article does) that the theory itself is antisemitic (or "sometimes" antisemitic)? What if it is actually right?

I just think this needs to be toned down for the sake of WP:NPOV. It is currently seething with pro-Israeli propaganda right now as I see it. Let's tone it down and make it more objective, as the rest of the lead is. Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote virtually the whole article, and the text you question. If you think I'm a paladin of pro-Israeli propaganda, check my record for being hounded by pro-Israeli propagandists in here. As to the specifics: Wexler's words are crucial - he is in the minority, but straight as a die. The gravamen of that article clearly shows that it can hardly be anti-Semitic since it has a long tradition in Jewish thought. Secondly, it is well-documented that particularly American anti-Semites, and some in Canada, associated the theory with their bullshit, as though it were a fact, not an historical hypothesis. The lead sums up the body of the text, which documents the way the lunatic fringe did use it to get at Jewish people. That in no way is an argument against a theory. It is simply an illustration of the instrumental use of a theory which, in itself, has no such implication, something that is, alas, normal in human and esp. political discourse.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't care about your track record. I care about the neutrality of the article and, however you wrote it is conflicting with the neutrality of the article, I believe. "The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism" is just an underhanded way of saying "the theory is antisemitic," and to say otherwise would be disingenuous. I agree that the theory is used by anti-Zionists and antisemites, but the first question is, why is this an important thing to mention in the lead of a historical article? That is like writing in the article on ancient Egypt that black nationalists sometimes stake claim to being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Is that really a relevant comment for the lead of an article? It just gives undue emphasis to anti-semitism, especially when it should just be an objective historical article. As it currently stands, you're dedicating 3 sentences of the lead to anti-semitism. Is this really appropriate is it perhaps overmuch? I think the latter.

Again, I think it needs to be toned down. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Тhe Wexler opinion goes against mainstream consensus of scholar hence per WP:NPOV we should give it a very little space.The wording was decided after much deliberation if you want really to change it you should bring really good sources that contradict those currently in the article--Shrike (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ambrosiaster, I think you are reading between the lines. Do you disagree that there is a real notable and verifiable link between the subject of the Khazars and some types of anti-semitism? If there is such a link then we know we should mention it at least in passing. (One reason is basic content policy, but the other is that NOT mentioning it surely will lead to endless accusations of non-neutrality. This of course does not mean that all people who believe the theory are anti-semitic. Do you really think it is saying this? If so, how would you word it so as to avoid it saying this? BTW I recall the theory is spelled out and handled in the body, where I think the article makes it clear that it is not simply an anti-semitic theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the Britannica article on Khazars for reference. In their article on Khazars, it reads (and not in the lead), "A few scholars have even asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many eastern European and Russian Jews. Whatever the case may be, religious tolerance was practiced in the Khazar empire, and paganism continued to flourish among the population." Don't you see how much more measured this tone is than the propagandistic language that is being peddled on Wikipedia? Of course, I do not oppose this controversial/anti-Zionist angling of the theory being mentioned somewhere in the article, but why even say "anti-semitism" in the lead of an article concerning a group of people who roamed the earth for 400 years? It just seems like it is giving undue emphasis to a modern-day minority group who, quite frankly, should not be featured in the lead of the article. Let the article be about Khazars, not about Ashkenazi Jews. The theory regarding them can be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not given so much attention in the lead. If there are some fringe conspiracy theorists who want to angle a theory/history that may or may not be credible (Britannica doesn't seem to discredit it as emphatically as Wikipedia does) in a controversial manner, then point that out somewhere else in the article. Three sentences in the lead is excessive, don't you think? -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is that it is notable, and with increased public interest in speculations about population genetics etc, it has increased in notability. See WP:NOTE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Even this seems slightly more measured to me: "In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jews descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany. This theory still finds occasional support among historians, but many scholars view it with scepticism,[24][25] and some associate it with antisemitism[26] and anti-Zionism.[27]" To say, "It is sometimes associated with antisemitism" to me is sort of conveying the message that it is indeed antisemitic. Categorically and without question. As the WP:NPOV policy states, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Likewise, I think it would be appropriate to say that some scholars associate it with antisemitism rather than to say categorically (with the exception of the 'sometimes') that it is antisemitic. (And this is just suggested if everyone is dead-set on keeping it in the lead, which I already oppose.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I note this wording "to say categorically (with the exception of the 'sometimes')". That is not categorical is it? I think OTOH that a link between anti-semitism and some versions of this theory are not "contested" in any significant way by serious sources? So it seems we need to report it that way and doing otherwise, sweeping this fact under the carpet, would be non-neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't 'peddle' propagandistic' language. On Wikipedia one follows sources closely, and we have sources for the language crafted in the line you object to. Anyone who reads the article can see that the Khazar theory is 'sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism', and that this sometimes is limited. And if you click on Anti-Zionism it will direct you to the main article Timeline of anti-Zionism which, and again I am to blame, will strongly document for the reader that opposition to Zionism has very strong historical roots among Jews. Despite the best efforts of politicized POV pushers, who have tried to wreck this article in order to equate the Khazar theory with anti-Semitism, or who have argued to the contrary that the Khazar theory has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, the delicate balance achieved throughout maintains a neutrality which many editors have consistently endorsed and helped maintain. The fact that people diametrically opposed to each other in the politics of knowledge think it gives either undue weight to the Khazar-anti-Semitism equation, or not enough weight to the same, means, objectively, that it satisfies neither POV precisely, I would argue, because it espouses neither view, and is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Ending with "antisemitism and anti-Zionism" does seem to focus on controversy. I'd consider switching the last two sentences for a better conclusion: This theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism. It still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with scepticism. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yaniv's reversion back into the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica article says it is RS. Actually it isn't, and should only be used of signed articles in a printed edition, articles written by an authority of the topic. The point was made recently by several eminently careful editors and admins here

What was added from it makes the lead repetitive.

established a major commercial empire covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia.[13] The Khazars created what for its duration was the most powerful polity to emerge from the break-up of the Western Turkic Khaganate.[14] Astride a major artery of commerce between Eastern Europe and Southwestern Asia, Khazaria became one of the foremost trading emporia of the medieval world, commanding the western marches of the Silk Road and playing a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East and Kievan Rus'.[15][16]

This topic is covered by excellent scholarship, and we don't need this kind of sourcing esp. since what was added is nugatory and covered in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Usually I agree with distinguishing antisemitism from anti-Zionism, and I would love to see Wikipedia distinguish the two more often in cases where it is appropriate — a great place where such a distinction is relevant is Category:Anti-Zionism, which is currently falsely and unjustly a subcategory of Category:Antisemitism, with all attempts to change this being constantly reverted (against Wikipedia policy on subcategory placement).

However, in the case of the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, there are at least two reasons why this cannot be relevantly distinguished from anti-Semitism, even when people try to pass it off as anti-Zionism:

1. All evidence points in the opposite direction, making belief in it essentially a baseless belief in some sort of cover-up (a Jewish conspiracy);
2. Half of Israeli Jews are either Sephardi or Mizrahi, so using the argument as a form of anti-Zionism means erasing half the Jewish population of the land.

As such, I don't think it makes sense to distinguish the two in this article. Any other thoughts on this? פֿינצטערניש (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Edits פֿינצטערניש (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So what you propose? --Shrike (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism." פֿינצטערניש (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this Anti-Zionism should me mentioned explicitly as it one of common themes of Anti-Zionists is that "Jews are not really Semites they have no right to the Land of Israel" --Shrike (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense, the more I think about it. It is always anti-Semitism, but it is also often anti-Zionism. I just find it important to distinguish between people whose anti-Zionism is rooted in a desire for a multi-ethnic secular state that everyone can share (or more broadly by concern for the Palestinians), vs. the sorts of anti-Zionists who engage in this sort of conspiratorial anti-Semitism aimed at denying Jewish history. But maybe that's for a different discussion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you are proposing to press your personal assessment into the article. It is not allowed. Even though this theory has become less and less acceptable to scholars in recent decades, it is a plain fact that historically many of its main proponents were Jews. Including some famous Jewish scholars. You can read about them in the history section of the article. Zero^talk 00:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Idem. Your distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is well-taken, but the passage we have has been stable for a long time, and Shrike himself has often reverted it back into the article when it has been challenged. Aside from Zero's observation, the link between Khazars and anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is mostly encountered in the 1910s-20s as a fringe, haranguing point in anti-Semitic literature in the United States, and survived in evangelical/ anti-Semitic pamphleteering there and in Canada for example that most people, even anti-Semites, never probably read. Antisemites don't need theories as abstruse as this one to hammer home their prejudice. To state per WP:OR that in anti-Zionism a common theme is that 'Jews are not really Semites, etc' is to suggest Jews are 'Semites' which reintroduces underhand the very kind of race theory on which anti-Semites thrive. The text as we have it avoids such dangerous POV-pushing, as it avoids suggesting that because they are a 'race' they are entitled ipso facto to Eretz Israel. We have a simple, source-grounded statement, and tweaking it this way only legitimates a polemical hysteria about perceived implications that are irrelevant to the more interesting things about the Khazars, whoever they were.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

[3] The believe is not that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a "hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora", the believe is that they are descended from the Khazars, there is no "hypothetical" in what they believe in and your are misrepresenting the views of the supporters of this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please first clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that a belief should not be called a belief or hypothesis, because for those believers it is more than that? This would be a strange argument. Normally we report beliefs as beliefs unless there is a really strong consensus in the world about the facts. As a second point, the way I read it, the word hypothesis is not just referring to the theory about the descent here, but saying that there is no record of a movement of Jewish Khazars to the west. On the other hand, I am wondering whether the theory really proposed such a movement to the west.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Shrike please stop reverting by erratic references to policy that, read closely, give no warrant for your revert. In particular, you do this mechanical stuff while rarely arguing to justify your choices on a talk page. Here's an opportunity to justify your edit.

The word 'assert' was reverted on the basis of WP:CLAIM, That reads

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

Bernard Lewis made that statement while (a) getting the date of the genesis of the theory wrong, out by fifty years and (b) ignoring the fact that several scholars in the decades prior to his statement, Poliak, Poliakov, Dinur, and Baron (the last a masterly historian of Jewish history) had treated it seriously. Hence Lewis's comment that no historian took it seriously in his day and age is a personal view, and counterfactual, as the article shows. Ankori in 1979, three years afterwards, wrote 'most historians' and hence is a claim, an assertion, words which the guideline does not exclude (read the lead). Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Confusingly, this article frequently uses, without explanation, multiple spellings of the same groups of people, occasionally within the same paragraph. (I myself am not competent to standardize these.) Acwilson9 (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can list them, I will try to fix the anomalies.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed this:

In opposition, in the Chinese lists of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people contained in the old and the new "Histories of the Tang Dynasty," the tribe of Kosa (Qasar) is referred to as the sixth. In the other important Tang compendium, Tang Huiyao ("Institutional History of Tang"), the tribe Sijie (Siker,Esegels) is named as the sixth one. This contradiction was already noticed by E. Pulleyblank^[1] and was finally explained by T. Senga, who showed that both Tanshu combined the list of names for "small" tribes (subtribal names) which were a part of the Uighurs, and the list of names of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people. Summarizing the results of several studies by Japanese scholars, T. Senga^[2] showed that the tribe Kosa (Qasar) dominated in the tribal group of the Sijie (Siker,Esegel), which included the tribe Apusy (Abuz).^[3]

S.G. Klyashtornyi from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in several of his works^[4] considered as the fact that Qasar/Kosa/Khazar are the same tribe and as the fact that the tribal alliance of Qasar/Khazar only partially migrated to the west of the Eurasian steppes(Klyashtornyi 2005, 2007)^[5]

Some of this might, in a sentence, be retried. It is unlinked, refers to inaccessible sources, and is needlessly fixated on an issue best clarified on the relevant pages. Generally, I see an indifference to the scholarly format that is the page's standard in several new edits, and the effect is to scar or blight the work done so far. Editors should try to adopt the conventions agreed on for a page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Khaz-ars, Bulg-ars, Tat-ars, "Ar-yan" (Ar - horse, Yan - people), etc., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlisivka (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In the last sentence in the lead it says: "The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism[23] and anti-Zionism.[24]", I checked the source for the alleged "antisemitism" and did not find that the source support the claim, I also can not access the other source for "anti-zionism" can someone ad the quote from the source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Leads must summarize the content, not, as the main body of the text does, paraphrase sources for every line, though we do have textual warrant for using it, namely Michael Barkun's comment cited in the anti-Semitic nexus section down the page. If standard histories of anti-Semitism like that of Léon Poliakov all but ignore the putative nexus, then it should be obvious that this hypothesis has not been a commonplace in this vein of semi-illiterate fantasy. Antisemitism is so thoroughly entrenched in European history that it never needed frail support from a minority thesis to strengthen its prejudices.

A huge amount of effort by, almost invariably, IPs consistently wishes to rid the lead of 'sometimes' which simply reflects what the historical survey and the sections on anti-Semitism point to, that fringe groups in Canada now, in England and the US in the 1920s and in evangelical white supremacist pamphleteering in the 50s and 70s, harped on the Khazar theory to back their fantasy that the 'Protocol' Jews were a bastard race unlike Aryans. The IP obsession with this is purely political: they toe the line that the Khazar theory invalidates the state of Israel, since were the Jews of Turkic origin, then the 'return' to Palestine/Israel would no longer be grounded in assertions of historical origins and divine right. That is why they keep hammering away at removing 'sometimes', in order to have the text say that the very claim that in the ethnogenesis of the modern Jews, Khazars may have played a role is itself indelibly, intrinsically anti-Semitic, and whoever espouses the hypothesis (which is clearly wrong) must be an anti-Semite. That defies the historical record, since from its inception many Jewish scholars espoused precisely this hypothesis, not out of self-hatred. The Nazis' genocidal odium for Jews never took on board the Khazar theory, except to not annihilate Jewish communities that claimed descent from Khazars. The same is true for anti-Zionism, and the immense effort made to associate it with anti-Semitism, though its most eloquent expounders have been people of Jewish extraction themselves, certainly not motivated by self-hatred.

The function of 'sometimes' is to deny that the history of the hypothesis underwrites an intrinsic association of the theory with anti-Semitism, a gross distortion of the record. It is a fringe lunatic idea, that pops up and gains minor speed from time to time, that's all. Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, most editors who want to expunge this, never get beyond the lead. They don't read the page or its section on anti-Semitism.Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)