Wikipedia

Talk:Khazars/Archive 7

< Talk:Khazars
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 66.110.185.244 in topic Origins/Linguistics
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Split

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The article is already almost 154k big, which makes it slightly hard to navigate, especially considering the ongoing dispute over its contents. I propose to split the significant portion of the article into Khazar Khaganate or the Kingdom of Khazaria (including sections on politics and government, religion in the kingdom, geography, etc.). The article on Khazars shall contain only one section on the Khazar Kingdom, similar to Nabatean kingdom and Nabateans.GreyShark (dibra) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you review the talk page, both myself and some other editors have suggested a split might be necessary. No one said the split, however, was required to avoid 'disputes over its contents' or to 'resolve the current status of this article'. Over the last few months I've spent some time mulling how it might be done, and my preliminary attempts to redesign it still leave the page at ca. 100-120,000 kb for the Khaganate, and 30-50,000 kb for the people, the problem being we know almost nothing of the Khazar people, but have extensive knowledge of its institutional, trade and diplomatic history.
What has to be avoided, given the tightly structured comprehensiveness designed into the page, is a cleaver approach. The 'problems' with the article boil down to what is negligible, a battle of WP:OWN between editors who wish to prove the Khazars have nothing to do with European Jews, and editors who wish to push that idea. Since it was completed, all 'disputes' are over this one issue. In my view, it is an ideological tussle between people who wish to overestimate Judaism's role in the Khazar empire and its diaspora, and people who wish to undercut it (I have over the last months argued against both, believing the evidence is inconclusive and therefore should not dominate the article). Both sides have an intense emotional investment in some 'truth' that must be by hook or crook brandished in the article which, however, was written to downcase this obsession by according it the status it has in Khazar studies, a minor thesis. Neither side shows any serenity or intrinsic curiosity in the Khazars themselves other than their bruited Jewish connection.
Given that splitting is a very complex matter, I think it fair to get as wide a community input as is possible, as well as the views of regulars. Perhaps we should ask for outside comment. And, if yes, then we should look around to see if wikipedia has writers with experience of doing a split of a GA level article into two, someone with no horse in the silly ideological POV pushing that has marked this page since its inception. (It is fully to be expected the Khazar people page, if split off, will involve mostly the Jewish-Ashkenazi debate, inviting massive expansion of the controversies and little on the Khazars in history) Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While I see the merit in such a split, I also note that in other instances splits have been counter-productive. The Avars article was split, for instance, leaving two fragments that need to be read together to be coherent. The split would make sense if there was enough content to flesh out each page, but there isn't, and those arguing in favor of the split do nothing to remedy the problem. Thus we are left with two deficient articles. There may be enough content here for such a split, but I agree that simply cleaving off sections will leave loose ends without significant work, and it is frustrating that those calling for a split will not engage with other editors to accomplish it. Simply slapping a tag on a page and walking away creates extensive work for someone else, while making wholesale changes and refusing to engage in discussion exacerbates the on-going disputes. And the idea that a split will somehow alleviate the disputes on the page is ludicrous and ignores the substance of the controversy. The dispute will simply follow the content. Greyshark, why do you refuse to engage in discussion? The restructure of the page in the spring was a collaborative effort, and no one showed any inclination toward WP:OWN. That effort should be a model for any further rework, and your refusal to engage seriously undermines your suggested changes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I might add that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, is almost the same length, and was awarded FA status. There are many parallels: the article was the subject of endless edit-wars, structurally ragged with bits and pieces, and atrociously sourced. A basic team of editors just set the bar high - only academic sources - and we managed to get it out of the slough of despond. It took several months of almost daily volunteer hard-labour to get it up to snuff, and was still subject to frequent attempts to destabilize it, until ARBCOM intervened to stop the rot. Articles subject to great POV-battles or historical controversy tend to be lengthy. I think one practical interim measure one can take it to begin to fork a few things, as we did on the SAQ article. As I suggested earlier, one could create a more detailed 'History of the Khazar Ashkenazi theory' section; a detailed Khazars and genetics page where the full outlay of the various papers can be set out. That option is open, and I fail to understand why those who are dissatisfied with the highly laconic synthesis this page gives those subjects, don't profit to exploit the opportunity. Trying to do everything on this page was one of the reasons the prior version was so flagrantly incoherent. Everybody pitched their POV in their favourite section, without regard to narrative design, balanced coverage, and coherent templating.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@Laszlo Panaflex: see my remark in the previous section before you accuse me of not engaging in dialogue.GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean your comment in the Reconstruction section, nearly a month ago. You've been asked multiple times by multiple editors to provide a more detailed proposal for the structural changes you are suggesting, yet you choose not to respond, then you propose a split and return to making structural changes without discussion. Making one remark is not engaging in dialogue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Four hours ago dear [1]. I'm waiting for your replies. The issue by the way now is one subtitle and not the reconstruction i was reverted by Nishidani last month.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
On both issues, and for the umpteenth time, please gain consensus here before making changes you know to be contested. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
We cannot make a discussion if you won't reply on the topic. You reverted me - fine, but please address why. Discuss at the above "bit-by-bit" section (this is not directly related with the split proposal).GreyShark (dibra) 18:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree in the need for consensus in all issues and in all time. However, Nishidani did not got consensus for overwriting of this article and he do not have any consensus for recent changes he makes almost every day. --Tritomex (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, read the archives. I worked for some months on this page, having announced my intentions, sketched what I intended doing, and asking fellow wikipedians for advice along the way. Could you please desist from making these wild unsubstantiated charges that constitute a personal attack. Do you realize how much real time I have to spend answering points that are wholly deprived of either substance or a knowledge of the topic we are editing, but seem to me merely to function as ammo for an attritional war? Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani, you didn't make a successful work here. The article is a disaster; i would expect better from an experienced editor like you.GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What reason is there to split? Because size isn't a primary issue yet. The articles on the Han and Tang dynasties are both greater in size and are FA in status. --Al Khazar 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

Greyshark. There were several editors who watched every edit I made, in two periods, from early January-Febr until I gave up because Tritomex, in my view an incompetent editor, with no sure grasp on wikipedia policy and a fragile handle on English, and a POV pusher to boot, made working on this impossible. I came back to it, and continued, and those editors corrected, gave advice, edited and oversaw what I did. I had no prior assurance of their assistance: at times, earlier, they challenged me. But I trusted that they were informed and serious editors dedicated to improving an article which had fallen into disrepair and disrepute. The article has (a) a consistent formatting template (b) uses wiki GA/FA criteria, throughout (c) accepts only a very high bar for sourcing, i.e. academic specialists in the main on that ethohistorical area's history, being structured according to the outline given by Peter Golden, perhaps the doyen of the discipline of Khazar studies. (d) replaced the patchy, ramshackle, piece-meal blobs of the earlier article by a coherent chronological and thematic narrative (e) used WP:Undue strictly in order to redimension the excessive litigation over one aspect of the Khazars (the Ashkenazi-Khazar theories) which had for a decade created endless edit-warring by proponents or opponents of this theory who seem to have been unable to look beyond this to the Khazars themselves.(f) removed, thanks to Laszlo's assistance, a shocking amount of overmapping crammed into the article, fictive portraits of Khazars and God knows what else, which people who deplore my article never thought problematical, etc.etc.etc. Of course, this still is in a stage of development, and is not definitive. But to say that four months of intensive research, and careful editing have produced a disaster, rather than getting a shipwrecked article onto some sound shoal is incomprehensible. Those who are criticizing the article are wholly focused on just one thing - the Khazars-Jews-and-genetics fixation. They have not pointed out (forget Tritomex's endeavour to raise objections above, in that pathetic alphabetical soup of repetitious nonsense above) any serious errors. If they do find them (and they are bound to be there) they'll be fixed. In the meantime, editors who wish to prove they are interested in the article, i.e., in the Khazars broadly, would do well to improve the article's descriptions of their history, institutions, religion, and whatever: this monomaniacal focus on just one facet of their complex history shows that there are POV-pushing obsessions still afoot, the kind that ruined the article in the first place. The Khazars are not significant because some of them happened to have converted to Judaism, and obsessing about this, and its imagined implications, is not appropriate.
Apropos your recent addition, it is incomprehensible.
It fails RS.
  • Kevin Alan Brook is not a geneticist
  • The paper is linked to an abstract, not to the full version.
  • Even if a full version existed, it would have to be peer-reviewed by the genetics community and available in a complete form even to warrant discussion.
  • The paper is not published in any genetics journal, as all the others are
  • It doesn't even look as though it wase published, though I may be wrong.
  • The Karaites are not necessarily the Khazars, yet you edited in material re the Karaites on the Khazar page from it.
  • You elaborated on it though it is by a non-geneticist, in the face of the fact that all the other genetic references by solid scientists are summed up, rather than selectively quoted for one or other point of view.
  • You ignored the obligation to format the link and article according to the standard templating the article now has, as if the aesthetics and quality were not important. Etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think my position is similar to LP's. The article is technically big enough to make a split discussion an obvious one to have, but I see reasons for caution here:

  • I know from experience that split proposals on complex and difficult-to-edit subjects often end up creating two less-well-attended articles, that situation, making it easier for POV editors to slip under the radar and wear down other editors, often eventually evolve into "POV forks". Clearly what we have with this article is exactly such a situation with POV editors constantly trying to slip in questionable material, and almost constant diligence necessary.
  • One of the obvious logical points which raises a concern then, is when the two proposed split-out subjects would need substantial coverage of the other topic in order to make them sensible. And in this particular case I find it hard to imagine how the two proposed articles would not be effectively covering at least about 50% of the same material. By splitting the efforts of our limited number of quality editors, such a situation can lead to 2 lesser quality articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Large scale 'copyediting'

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Greyshark. I apologize in anticipation, but I found your numerous rearrangements, modications and 'copy-editing' extremely confusing. Could you please use the talk page when suggesting radical reorganization. It took several months to try and get this into shape, and I found numerous problems in your adjustment. I've only time to mention a few. In general, they show little awareness of the state of the debate in the sources.

  • (1) 'Kingdom' for 'Steppe empire'. Whatever you think, the phrase is in Golden and several other sources. This is written, word for word, in line with the cited sources, and arbitrary adjustments to the language without attention to those sources is problematical.
  • (2)'Some research suggests that the core of Ashkenazi Jewry emerged from a Khazarian Jewish diaspora,' Wrong use of ‘research’.
  • though this is generally treated with scepticism by those who claim there is a direct genetic link to people of Biblical era Israel.

You are linking two different areas of scholarship. Geneticists who have no knowledge of history, and historians who have no knowledge of genetics. Great pains have been made to keep these two spheres separate, since the two fields are not evidently in dialogue. The geneticists's papers make farcical use of historical sources. The historians so far rarely use genetics. You blurred this

  • (3) By upping the religious conversion section above the Byzantine –Arab buffer section you ruined the lead reflection of the chronological narrative of the page.
  • (4) Disintegration of the Khazar state with the Russian conquest is considered a drive for assimilation of Khazar tribes.

This is completely garbled English and essentially meaningless. (the 'Russian conquest' for 'Rus' conquest' is particularly inept, and if I have deciphered the intended meaning, the scond part is a weird statement. And 'is considered' (by whom).

  • In 965, as the Qağanate was struggling against the victorious campaign of the Rus' prince Sviatislav, the Islamic historian Ibn al-Athîr mentions that Khazaria, attacked by the Oğuz, sought help from Khwarezm, but their appeal was rejected because they were regarded as 'infidals'. etc

This violates the lead necessity for synthesis by selecting out of many data one item, and privileging it against the many other details. One source cannot be showcased. Since the whole of Khazar studies is a matter of variegated 'theories' on sparse evidence only simply cannot assume any one version is correct.

It would take me an hour to analyse the effect on narrative structure of the West. I would appreciate it if you could reintroduce the material you had here, so we can discuss how best to use it. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. When the page was completely reorganized in March, a detailed proposal of the structure and process was posted here and discussed before it was executed. I believe this is how any further radical reorganization should proceed as well. As sensitive as the page has been to major edit wars and heated discussions in the talk section, a wholesale restructure without discussion is inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Nishidani, considering the poor situation of this edit-war torn article, i would say that your revert was merely an overkill of accurate reconstruction attempt in line with general articles on nations and ethnic groups.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could propose a reconstruction of the page and an outline of how it would be laid out here, then it could be discussed. This worked quite well in the spring, improving the page from a dramatically worse state than it is in now. Substantial rewriting of the page took place over the summer, so perhaps the structure should be readdressed. But the place to do so is here, given the many contested issues present. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Laszlo is correct. Nishidani has done a lot of work to address exactly the problematic state of this article, and he went through the steps, showing no signs of trying to walk over people or own the article. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so let's continue that way. After all the problems of the article have much to do with hasty editors who jump in during instability. I thank Greyshark for getting involved but please work step by step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong. My impression is that this page is under general attack. Apart from the extremely time-consuming and rather witless argufying Tritomex engages in, twice User:Greyshark has endeavoured to make substantive section changes without troubling to discuss them, as the consensus above advised him to do. See here and here. I think this discourteous, to say the least. I asked him the first time round to discuss his proposals, got no answer, and only a further revert.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Attack is a very subjective feeling. One might say that you are attacking the article as well.GreyShark (dibra) 18:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the words 'attack' and 'defense' are antonymns. One cannot attack what one defends. I am not defending my article, in my view. I am defending a collaborative attempt to bring a wretched article up to GA standards, in a version that has been stable for some months, and whose factual adhesion to the comprehensive academic sources used to compile it no one has yet seriously, as opposed to mockingly, challenged. As Wexler said, Khazars have been strenuously exploited for polemics, and I have assiduously avoided ruining the article by adopting any side in this partisan POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Another attempt to reintroduce genetic arguments, as if resolutive, into the history of the theory section.
The consensus on this page was that confusing, as Greyshark's edit did, the genetic arguments and the history of the theory survey would be structurally destabilizing. So the IP has ignored the consensus and gone ahead to reintroduce a variant of Greyshark's edit. So, it is to be reverted, in my view. If you wish to explore the details of the dozen genetic papers which, over the last decade, have addressed, with varying results, this issue, make a fork, and we can give the complete detailed picture of the debate there. I'll help out, and add a page link to the genetics section here so readers can pursue it there. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a genuine misunderstanding every time a genetics article comes out, that there is a new consensus. This is understandable given the way science publishing and promotion works today, but in fact what we have in genetics is a constant alternation of new articles which claim to have proven either one thing or the opposite thing. In fact it is very hard to prove anything finally in this sort of subject (ancient ancestry based on testing modern people). You have to consider for example that all these studies use modern populations as proxies, and it is not clear whether the Caucasus or Arabia are closer to the genetic situation of Israel in past millenia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a fascinating field, indeed, but as you say, the results are in constant flux because the methodologies are producing different results. Why I separate the historical rundown from the genetics papers is partly for the reason you give, and partly because there is as yet no intelligible interface between historical research, and genetics. If I may hazard an opinion, the nature of the Judaic populations in the Caucasus is extremely complex, with Iranian, Iraqi, Armenian, Georgian elements, to name but a few, attested, with no clear picture whether they represent conversions or endogamous 'Israelitic' remnants or communities. Historians learn to work with these ambiguities and complexities. Geneticists seem to show only a slight familiarity with them. Biblical Israel itself, before Judaism as we know it, was a very heterogeneous whirlpool of populations, Canaanite/Phoenician/Egyptian/Arab/Greek/Eteocretic/Hittite/Hurrian/Ivri tribes etc. The old Greek paradigm of a unified people broke down 40 years ago, its orientalizing variegatedness acknowledged. This still hasn't quite hit public awareness, which is what most review articles of the genetic 'conclusions' reflects. In any case, keeping the two discourses separate is also necessary because that edit tended to imply:'Historians have taken a pro-/contra-position on the theory. Science has decided.' It's not that simple, since the science makes many unhistorical assumptions about populations.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

POV battles. A note to both sides.

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There are two groups of POV pushers vexing the page, without actually caring to discuss their reverts or additions. The odd thing is that they are diametrically opposed.

  • (a)Those who wish to suppress the lead note on the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis's occasional association with antisemitism
  • (b) Those who wish to showcase putative refutations of the same hypothesis in genetic papers.

To explain, assuming good faith, (a):-

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

I personally don't think this important enough to be in the lead, since the many notable scholars, Israeli/Jewish or otherwise, have advanced the thesis without the slightest taint of antisemitism, and should not be tarred with that brush. The antisemites we list are mainly obscure, fringe fanatics.
  • Despite my personal assessment, I wrote that sentence per WP:Lede summary style, the sentence alluding succinctly to the last two sections. The function of a lead is to summarize the contents. The word 'sometimes' (Zero's choice) replaces 'occasional' (dismissed by User:Jayjg on WP:NOR grounds), and represents a careful compromise. The sentence makes the connection some wish to emphasize, but at the same time it correctly notes, in 'sometimes', that antisemitism is not intrinsic to the hypothesis. It thus fashions a compromise between those reverters who defend the legitimacy of the theory, and those who think the evidence delegitimates it. Neither group should press for any change that breaks WP:NPOV, either by suppressing the line, or by overemphasis of the antisemitism-Khazar/Ashkenazi connection.
As to (b):-
  • The genetics section meticulously cites all of the scientific work which challenges the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis. It does so briefly on the grounds of (i) WP:Undue because the page is about Khazars, their origins, history, culture, institutions, demise, and lastly, a modern theory about its possible diasporic impact. Another crucial factor is article length. We have covered most angles, and have a large article which is at the upper limit for length. Adding more negative detail to the genetics section would tempt an explosion of details that foreseeably would strain WP:Undue and the optimal article upper-limit length. The stable productive editors of the page have calculated all these issues with care. Editors who wish more details on that issue (and if one consults the archives here, here, andhere) should open up a subpage. It's simple to write that fork: (a) assemble (already done) all genetics papers and books which mention the Khazar theory (b) consult the originals, and paraphrase each neutrally, in chronological order, for what they say (and avoid selective citation) (c) add the way each of these books and papers' results on the Khazars/Ashkenazim was reported in the newspapers or secondary sources, and then write a lead summarizing the lot per due weight. This is what one does when one considers a main page is not detailed enough, and edit-warring to get one's POV into it is destructive. Lastly, it is curious that neither party to this POV war has done anything to improve the overall article. The focus is on the political implications of the theory (does it (de)legitimate Israel?), and neither group will ever be satisfied there. The page as it stands tries to stand above that absurd fray, and write what should interest readers, i.e., the comprehensive history of the Khazars, rather than fantasize about one minor aspect of their reception in this POV-obsessive age.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
the problem with the genetic section, is that it is purely about alleged Khazar - Ashkenazi Jewish connections (proving/refuting), but there is no single research about actual findings from Khazar graves and connections of Khazars to the current populations of Northern Caucasus (specifically those claiming Khazar ancestry).GreyShark (dibra) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
We edit in stuff according to what the record throws up. So far, genetics deals with the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory. When we have competent reports on skeletons, they to will go in. The lack of the latter is not a problem with the text. It is a lacuna in the scholarly sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Greyshark, you are right. I think the relevance of any of that material is limited on this article. But that does not mean we can avoid mentioning it if we are going to try to achieve a consensus between the extremes. These genetics articles at least claim to have something to say about Khazars, and the various extreme editors will keep wanting to cherry pick the ones who say what they want (n the basis of their great admiration for the geneticists involved of course). :) If we have to have something, then, like Nishidani says... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Then why not mentioning Buhler who is trying to link Khazars with both Askenazi Jews and Vikings in Genetics of the immune cell receptors TCRB and CCR5 in human disease? What about the article by Guglielmino on Genetic Structure in Relation to the History of Hungarian Ethnic Groups?GreyShark (dibra) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those. I'd never seen them. I think this just shows that we do need a The Ashkenazi-Khazar theory and Genetics' page fork. We just can't get into the details, and the major research papers are just listed for pro, dubious, contra. The potential for expansion is notable, but it would mean 20kb extra, and that's why I suggest someone passionate about this open up a special page on it. Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Shalom11111's 'we have the truth' section.

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

This edit is all over the place like a mad man's crap. It's an incogruent mess of internal contradictions, selective and often poor sourcing, to prove a point.

(1)Historians and scientists today believe the Khazarian theory should more accurately be called a myth.

Not a reliable source (and a demonstrable untrue generalization by an interested party) (2)The theory, which claims that today's Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazar empire that had converted to Judaism, has been widely spread on the Internet and is often associated with anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian groups as well as antisemitic circles.

  • Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sun-Esoteric-Politics-Identity/dp/0814731554|accessdate=9 November 2013 "Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity"]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

This is already stated in the text and the source is already used in the text (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke,Black Sun see note 255). Ie., reduplication of preexisting matter.

(3)A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis

(4)and although there is no historical or DNA evidence to support the the Khazar idea, it is still popular in Arab states.

This was published before Elhaik, and therefore is outdated, (b) popular in the Arab States'. The text cites Bernard Lewis on this already. (5)Generally, the theory has brought up speculation

  • Goldstein, David B. (2008). "3". Jacob's legacy: A genetic view of Jewish history. Yale University Press. pp. location 873 (Kindle for PC). ISBN 978-0-300-12583-2.

Brought up means 'vomited' in English

(6)and opposing arguments that there's no legitimate evidence to support it

Using a science reporter to make a call on what is 'legitimate evidence' on an historical question (7) by numerous scientists.

The text already cites numerous scientific papers challenging the Ashkenazi theory. Reduplication (8)Another contradiction to the theory is that Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have begun settling in Germany in the year 321,

All Jewish histories say 'Ashkenazi Jews' are never mentioned in any source until 7 centuries later

(9)or approximately 500 years before the alleged Khazar conversion. In addition, Ashkenazi Jews have been found to have a DNA connection to Israelites and the Middle East,Middle East origins:

  • Jared Diamond (1993). "Who are the Jews?" (PDF). Retrieved November 8, 2010. Natural History 102:11 (November 1993): 12-19.

Outdated source by an anthropologist on genetics, and the theory he proposes is challenged by recent professional geneticists, and therefore cannot be stated as though it were a fact.

The year is 2008. Costa and Richards 2013 disagree. Therefore this is not a fact, as reported, but a theory.

(10) sharing many common genes with other Jews from some 3000 years ago.

Wade in 2010 is cited, Wade contradicting what he said there, in 2013, ignored. POV selective sourcing push. (11)Using four Jewish groups, one being Ashkenazi, a Kopelman et al study found no direct evidence to the Khazar threory

Bad prose. 'Threory' is 'theory', no direct evidence to = no direct evidence for. Many other papers by Ostrer, Behar et al, say there may be a minor Khazar input. (12) while another research concluded that its findings "debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.

Not RS for the type of quality used by the article.

This genetics paper cited for (12) contradicts the genetics papers cited for (9) and (10)

This is totally incoherent plastering of 'stuff' in order to make a case for the 'truth', while ignoring the plea that expansions of this kind (5000kb) would only per WP:NPOV call for a balancing expansion that would blow out the article. Further, it completely ignores the arduously established unified template (c) A consensus agreed that any further additions of this kind were inappropriate to the page, and this appears to have no other purpose than to destabilize it.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

While there might be one or two things here that should be mentioned in the article, merely collecting all the scraps one can find to support one's preferred position and shoving them into the article is unacceptable editing practice on Shalom11111's part. Zerotalk 01:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Shalom11111 and Galassi for trying to create an useful article from this. The section you created needs to be expanded with other historic sources. Other sections have to be rewritten as well.--Tritomex (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani at least 3 editors are telling you to stop with your reverts. You have now violated the 3R edit warring rule--Tritomex (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Neither User:Shalom11111, User:Galassi (in the past I have only ever seen him edit pages I work in order to revert me without explanation in someone else's favour) nor yourself read or contributed to the talk page where the problems of adding more material were discussed.Note that you have now created havoc, by not even looking at my talk page explanation, nor examining the subpage (The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory) I created 10 minutes ago, as is shown by the fact that I did not 'revert' anyone. What you did was a blind revert, restoring the page without even caring to examine the changes, i.e., edit-warring Gleichschaltung. I placed new material on this page into the subpage several thing required. So, you are all engaged in game-playing here, acting mechanically and in lockstep, and the obvious effect is to start wrecking the article. And please show where I violated the 3R rule. Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I intended to say that your further reverts will be violation of 3RR. You have made 3Rs within 24h, therefore my apology for saying it incorrectly. Regarding the substance, archives are full of materials showing in what horrific state of POV pushing this article was left (from sourcing with unreliable authors, picking up sources and deleting or removing well sourced material) after it was overwritten few months ago. I am sorry but I cant repeat myself each time someone try to create something positive from the current status of this article.--Tritomex (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you said what you stated, and accused me of something I did not do. I will add it to the impressive list of your threats and POV pushing because this disruptive behaviour canìt continue and must be addressed in an administrative forum. You reverted a text without looking at its merits, and that too is a grave violation of our editorial obligations. Feel free to improve the subpage because that is where this massive 10,000 kb expansion, with the promise of further material, has to go for reasons already explained. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make it clear. I'm still waiting for you to revert an edit that, by your own admission, was done incorrectly, without examining the nature of my edit. Your edit summary:'Not justified removal of sourced material' ignores the fact that it was justified on the talk page immediately afterwards, and no removal or revert was involved, but a transfer of questionable expansion to a subpage.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
You are free to proceed according to your wish. Although editing Wikipedia is only my hobby, as I am not retired from my job I am also not addicted to editing. Regarding your threats, I have a plenty of material about you as well. Regarding sub-page, you created out of your own will, 3 editors told you that removing selectively this material from this article is not justified. You proceeded with this under new pretext, third time within 24 hours, reverting 2 editors and disregarding opinion of 3 editors. Regarding the new section on criticism I think its addition to the article is fully justified and in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. Regarding sub-page about Khazar Theory, its clear that neutrality demands , that eighter everything related to the issue (including your massive texts related to Khazar Theory written few months ago) goes from article there, or nothing. I will never support selective removals of well sourced material. --Tritomex (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
To refresh your memory, if you ever read the talk page.
  • (1)Greyshark initiated, without prior comment, a massive restructuring of the article, and it contained numerous problems, duly analysed. A discussion ensued, and the long-term editors concurred that edits of a structural novelty were to be proposed before they were made.
  • (2)An important issue was that the article was already at the limits, length-wise. The consensus was (Andrew, Laszlo, myself and I believe Khazar2, that splitting the article, as then proposed, was inadvisable.
  • (3)A fork was suggested for editors who wished to make more extensive coverage of key subsections.
  • Indifferent to (1) (2) and (3) User:Shalom11111 jumped in with a major structural change, a new section, expanding the article heavily, made no proposal beforehand, ignored the invitation to fork, and refused to make an argument in defence of his edit, and in justifying the various consensuses formed here on these issues. The contempt is also in his casual use of indifferent sources and refusal to respect the template for citations adopted uniformly by the page.
  • I naturally reverted him because he violated the collaborative nature of the work done here. User:Galassi appeared out of nowhere and reverted my edit, as I was analysing the problems with Shalom11111's edit. I made an extensive list of points, which have not be replied to, neither by Shalom11111, Galassi or yourself.
  • I eventually shifted the material to the subpage, in line with the above considerations of a threat to the length limit, because that whole section gives negative criticism while ignoring that many of the genetics papers, while denying the Khazar theory as a central factor, do not exclude it as a possible minor element. WP:NPOV was destroyed, and to restore it, one would have then had to add extensive material to balance the critical material. This would have brought the page up to 20,000 kb more in two days, and that is unacceptable. The only option was to transfer the new material, by creating a sub-page to cover every angle. I did that.
  • You didn't even look at my edit, the subpage, and reverted me on the false grounds that I broke 3R.
  • So this has been, with three editors, a total subversion of the normal wiki process of collaborative editing. Instead of a workmanly consensus via talk, there is a kind of automatic tagteaming by yourself and others while no serious attempt to engage with the longterm editors has taken place. It is reverting by fiat, and refusing to explain oneself. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Greyshark proposed and I agreed to split the article in to two parts namely Khazars and Khazar kingdom-so this has nothing to do with the current issue.The only thing you forgot is that nowhere it was agreed or even discussed what will eventually go from this article to the sub-page snd certainly you did not have consensus that within few hours you should decide what should be taken out from this article and moved to sub-page . In my opinion if there is agreement that this page should be split into Khazars and Khazar Theory, naturally everything related to the Khazar Theory including your additions have to be moved to the new article. This is not something that you can solely decide, nor should your edits enjoy privilege over Galassi and Yam edits . Do not forget that the section regarding Ashkenazi-Khazar links was created and written recently by yourself adding more than 20,000 kb of new material into the article as well. My proposal is therefore to move all material related to Khazar Theory to the sub-oage shortening the current article without selective-Chery picking . Based on this general terms, I propose to discuss the exact portion of the text which falls in to this category and which should be moved to the sub-page with all involved editors in the next 24-h. By than a consensual decision on this subject will emerge. As I said neutrality requires that both the theory and its criticism should be moved jointly, and in this way no editor and its contribution would be harmed. You also must understand that people are not spending whole days in editing Wikipedia, so instant and unilateral decisions and are impossible and contra-productive. --Tritomex (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
regarding issues you have raised:
  • (1) This could be sourced with Bernard Lewis as well,
  • (2) (3)If the source is already in the text it does not mean that it cant be used for other references too. For example you used Elhaik papers in at least 3 places in the article.
  • (4) Elhaik contravrsial and widely criticized analysis is not ground breaking event in the historic science or in population genetics, and there are new published genetic studies which disputes Elhaik claims, so by this logic Elhaik would be outdated as well.
  • (5) ?
  • (6) The genetic origin of any people is primarily population genetic question, much more than historic question
  • (8) I need time to look at this question.
  • (9)(10) This could be sourced with academic genetic books like Tony Frudakis also.
  • (11) The claim is fully supported with the source.--Tritomex (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Greyshark's proposal was turned-down. In any case, I have already begun to construct the subpage, it is, on day one 26 kb, and I calculate that it will roughly run to 100kb, based on what will happen when we expand the compressed details here. Your arguments have no merit, because the Khazar page here has obligatory sections on the modern controversy, are as as synthetic as policy demands for what is a minor aspect of Khazar studies (read the surveys). This odd proposal, 'Khazars and Khazar Theory' (what on earth is 'Khazar theory'? Almost everything about the Khazars is 'theory, from their origins, to their language and their conversion) that all mention of the controversy should be removed from the page has no precedent I am aware of.
As to your 24 hour limit, where on earth in wiki policy did you get this draconian time limit for what is a major proposal (apart from the fact that I will be away from wikipedia from Monday to late Tuesday or early Wednesday)? Again this is a unilateral assumption you are trying to dictate over the fate of a page that took several months of daily labour to build, and that was done consensually. You are endeavouring to frogmarch procedures here unilaterally, esp. by a new group of editors who have contributed nothing to the construction of the page, while those who have concur that any kind of radical surgery will in all probability wreck the page. I would suggest therefore that this part of your proposal be dropped (certainly until I am back to participate).Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The Khazar theory is not a modern controversy as only 3 marginal controversial scholars advocate it (all three partially and from different aspects. This theory does not even have precise name and definition as it does not exist in reliable academic historic sources. One of the most prominent advocate of Khazarian theory is not even mentioned by this article. It was Benjamin H. Freedman who provided the financial support for Holocaust denier publications and in 1959 claimed that there were many million more Jews in the United States than Jews were willing to admit. These were the six million he claimed "allegedly put to death in furnaces and in gas chambers between 1939 and 1945" He was the creator of Khazarian conspiracy theory, which he formulated in his famous 1961 speech.)) while the overwhelming majority of scholars do not take it seriously. You created recently a section of this article regarding this theory, expanding hugely this article. Yam created as per WP:NPOV a section regarding scientific criticism of this theory. So in my opinion, neutrality dictates that eighter both will be moved to a subpage, or both will stay. Both yours and Shalom11111 edits are recent additions to this page.You cant demand preferential treatment for your edits. You unilaterally created a subpage without waiting to discuss its context with other editors, than you edited it, again without discussing it with us. Here you reverted Yam, Gallasi Greyshark and me, and you removed the neutrality and accuracy tag challenging the neutrality of your edits.

Regarding 24h I never said it was a limit, it was a proposal. Regarding sub-page, if you already decided that it will be 100kb, and if you already edited it, what is left for discussion or consensus? Anyway I am really tired with this article talk page, I spent days and nights here, so I will be absent for some time as well.--Tritomex (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After Greyshark's rewrite was reverted, the talk page agreed that major changes should be discussed beforehand here. Greyshark, unlike the editors who followed, being an editor of long experience, did not push the point. Instead, Shalom11111 went ahead with a major edit which reduplicates (while expanding) a section, breaks the narrative flow, caring neither to accept the judgement of peers, nor to explain its necessity before or after. I was in my rights therefore to revert it. Galassi immediately reverted me - coming out of left field - no discussion before or after. I reverted it per the talk page consensus, and you then reverted me. The silent numbers game playing against the rationally discussed consensus of editors who have actually worked the page over the last year. (b) the subpage has much more detail than this, including Shalom11111's additions, which have to be reedited there because they are POV-pushing, therefore his addition has, as a major but immature or incomplete expansion, no place here, for reasons of kb limits. For these two reasons the text must assume the form it had before Shalom11111 added that material, which doesn't mean the text of this page, in the relevent sections, can't be finessed (c)Benjamin H. Freedman was no alone: the list could and will be expanded on the other page, including such people as James Keegstra(see Alan Davies, 'The Keegstra Affair,' in Alan T. Davies (ed.)Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation, Wilfred Laurier University Press, (1992) 1999 pp.227-248, pp.241ff. Like several of the crackpots already mentioned, these fools are non-entities in the world of Khazar studies, which only really is contaminated by antisemites by some scholars in the Slavic world. The place for all this obscurity is not here.
It may only be a coincidence but precisely as this page came under attack an attempt to hack into my wiki account, from an address in Petah Tikva, was undertaken. I have the relevant details, down to the identity and address of the company, if any administrator wishes to look at them.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People shouldn't get so emotional about Jews or Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars. If Ashkenazi are descendants of Jews, say they are descendants of Jews. If they are not descendants of Jews, say that they are not descendants of Jews. This is a historical topic. People shouldn't get so emotional and scared of Khazar and Jew connection. Just state the truth. World is not going to collapse if there are Khazar and Jew connection.

Also this digging deep into sources written by who knows who isn't really going to help the article. First of all probably most of the sources are biased. The Jewish authors stated that Ashkenazi descended from David that came down from heaven and the others say partially Jews are descandants of Khazar. I personally think there is a possibility of Jewish and Khazar connection, it is called ethnogenesis. People change, religion change and society and culture change and people move to different location. Their appearance/race/ethnicity change. For instance if an Asian person marries an European, he/she will look mixed and if that person marries an European he/she will will look European.

I personally don't believe that Moses, David, Jacob came down from good old heaven and invented the Jewish people. Judaism is a simple religion that is mixed with ethnicity by the Jews themselves to insulate each other from other societies. I personally think this book The Invention of the Jewish People is pretty closer to the truth. Also these sources that people get so into it is practically useless written from Western perspective and are all biased. They try to dig big things out of nothing.

There are basically three things that will happen to historical people (basically all people in history) - They die, get killed and totally wiped out and probably 1-2% of them survive as slaves and they will probably disappear - They change and absorb into the surrounding culture. Their appearance and culture will morph with the surrounding people and gradually disappear -They will move on to a different location and then they might get absorbed among the new population.

but generally the most likely scenario is absorption by surrounding culture.

On the other hand people need to objectively look at where does Ashkenazi community come from? If Khazars converted and disappeared, where does Ashkenazi come from? Did 10 Jews come down from Israel and convert Europeans and then there were 7 million Jews in Europe? Why do people say Khazar and Ashkenazi are connected? Why do they say that? Is it factually correct or is it just trying to delegitimize Jewish history. Better question would be look at this from the opposite direction. How did Ashkenazi came to be? Did they really came from Israel? If a person converts to Judaism, does that mean he is direct/blood descendant of ancient Jews? I don't think so. He/she converted just like Islam and Christianity. Does that person have genetic links to ancient Jewish people. No. If an insular people breed and marry with each other for a long time would there be a new physical appearance emergence, possibly yes. If a Jewish person marries a Christian and that Christian converts to Judaism, is he/she biologically related to good old David/Tribes of Israel/Hebrew/Jacob/David. no. People also need to distinguish when religion/myth ends and real history begins. Also people shouldn't take Jewish and Khazar connection as always anti-Semitic. If history states that there are Jewish and Khazar links, would history be anti-Semitic? No. This is telling the truth. Simple truth. It is really not about who is wrong or right. This is what happened and people can make their own decisions.

Just state the truth. This is not a pissing contest. Read Shlomo Sand and stop trying to invent things out of nothing. It is not going to work and it will more confuse people. Just a thought. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding criticism of the Ashkenazi Khazar theory

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Reverting me and another user, Nishidani insists that I get a consensus before I add this new section. Ironically, he accused me in the edit summary of not complying with WP:NPOV, which is completely WP:BIAS double standard! So here I am, "proposing" this new section. Thanks Shalom11111 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This was discussed, and the editors who have actually rewritten the page concurred that massive structural alterations were to be discussed first before being edited in. You ignored this, and simply pasted in the trash below. It break the format, it is a jumble of googled incoherencies, and has established the precedent of returning the page to the chaotic mess it was several months ago. Galassi walked in and did the standard, 'no comment, I support the other guy' dirty work. Unimpressive, and the intent is obvious. You have the option of forking. If you blow ins persist, I'll excorporate it and make the fork subpage. We are aspiring to deal with an NPOV-compliant quality article here, no political POV pushing or point scoring.Nishidani (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is more clear than ever that the A-K issue needs to be forked off into its own article. The page is already Very Large, and the new section has a Needs Expansion tag, promising even more content. Rather than expanding the section here, that effort should be put into building a new entry. Perhaps if the issue has its own page, some of the controversy can be dealt with by delving more deeply into the various studies. At any rate, it would focus the discussion/dispute onto a dedicated page, rather than appending it here, where it keeps the page in flux. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong that Shalom11111's provocation (editing against the talk page, indeed ignoring it) is the first step towards pushing the article out of reasonable limits, in order to drive home a consensus to split it, which would smash the article and require extenuating efforts to rebuild the resulant two pages. But in any case, to avoid endless warring and the resultant messes, I have done Shalom11111's work for him, by creating a subpage specifically on the theory and removing his additions there, where all are free to dump in details and material without the kind of worries caused recently on this page.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Although certainly this article needs restructuring, removing of problematic sources and eventual splinting, If a new sub-page for Khazar theory would be created on consensus,than all material,( not just selective criticism) related to Khazar Theory (including sections written by Nishidani) has to be transferred there.--Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no agreement it needs restructuring; no one can finger one source on the page as it existed before Shalom11111's edit, which is identifiably problematical; what needs 'splinting' is a damaged body, and the proposal to 'split' the article has been rejected so far. To cope with a legitimate desire by Shalom11111 and yourself to develop (extensively) the short sections on this page covering the history of the theory and antisemitism The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory‎ has been created. It will almost certainly run, checking the material I myself have gathered, to considerable length, developing in depths the points that, per summary style for what is a minor aspect of Khazar studies, have been registered here. It is not wiki practice to eviscerate the main page subsections when you develop a subpage, as you are suggesting. I guess it's more work for me as stuff is thoughtlessly googled up, unformatted, and slapped onto that page. The page simply cannot support extra material. I have withheld much material in respect of that necessity, and some new research will have to be added which, were this new stuff retained, bring the page way past acceptable limits. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Before we categorically deny or accept a huge conclusion, we need to realize where the sources come from, who wrote the sources. Ashkenazi Jews who don't want connection with Khazars will say that David came down from heaven and Jews were living in Israel for centuries and they travelled north to form Ashkenazi community. Eastern sources might say they are connected to Jews. The better question is why do people keep saying they are Ashkenazi and Khazar connection? Are they all 100% anti-Semites? are they talking about alternative interpretation? Were Huns Mongols? Were Xiongnu Mongols? Just try to look at why do people keep saying Khazar-Jew connection? If there is a factual link between these two they are factually connected if people like it or not. This is history. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, this understanding of Jews coming down from heaven or being created by David or Jacob, or Mount Sinai or God sending Hebrew Bible from the heavens has already gone too far. This is myth/religion/folklore. I don't think people should make strong arguments in the already contentious article. It is not black or white or 1 or 0.. There could be Khazar admixture. It is relative. I think Jews are very much mixed people. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You are an idiot. David did not "come down from heaven," and God did not create Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. This is real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.42.139 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well David is in the heavens right? and David sent his blessings from the heavens and magically and in some way Jews were the chosen people. There were ancient people in the country now called Israel, but I think they converted to Islam and became Palestinians. I personally don't think Ashkenazi is connected to Israelis/ancient Middle East people. They disappeared. The Ashkenazi basically invented and glorified the supposed connection to ancient Israel, but genetically and by blood, I don't think there is a big connection if at all. There are couple of things that people should know before writing these articles. 1. Religion/myth: David, Jacob, Torah, Judaism 2. History: ancient middle east people now located in Israel, Khazars, Ashkenazi. There is a very strong distinction between these two. There are basically no genetic links between Jews except the ones that bred in Europe among the Ashkenazi. There are blood links between Ashkenazi because they were so insular but extending that to include all Jews is ludicrous. This mythological and heavenly connection between all Jews that were blessed from the Gods and now they are struggling has gone too far. This is feel good mythology and not based on reality. People need to distinguish between myth (likely false) and real history (rock, ground, mountain, food). Also people really can't deny the possible connection between Ashkenazi and Khazars and that is what is being argued here, but to state here and categorically 100% deny the connection is biased. Just state the positions, arguments and reasons. Why do they say there is a connection? This is a central question of the article. Why, what cause, what happened, where did they go, who is arguing it. 107.18.43.122 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetics/historic discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Nishidani, pls be reasonable: even if "the results are in constant flux" it doesn't mean new results are irrelevant, particularly not when previous results are included. Reality is indeed in constant flux (panta rei, as Heraclit remarked), but we still have to contend with available facts meanwhile. Your overruling of "Nature, Communications" appears a little hubristic. Can I suggest you discuss for consensus before deleting? 80.212.15.123 (talk)

That's panta rhei, by the way, the rhota is aspirated. The new results are mentioned with direct citation of the scientific paper, in the genetics section. I haven't overruled "Nature Communications", and your saying so means you haven't read the page. See note 273, and the bibliography. Thirdly, you cited a newspaper report. Well, establish a precedent for this article for what newspapers say of genetics papers, for instance, and you will get an explosion, as each side in this POV-war by parties who espouse a thesis in violation of WP:NPOV, hops in with his ort her barrel-load of 'pro-my-beliefs' refs from the commentariat, and you will get a complete mess. Because reporters jump at each paper as it is published and highlight the claim, and there is a huge amount of claiming, for and against, which ignores the nuances. You'll get every positive assessment of Elhaik when his paper came out competing with every positive assessment of his critics, or of papers that challenge his work, in a propaganda battle. If you want that, then, do as I suggest, below. Open up a fork 'Genetics and the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory' and go for it. This page has aspired to very stringent wiki criteria: were some of us keen on assessments, it would certainly pass GA with a minimum of tinkering, and probably have good candidate status for the FA process. No one is doing that (it's time consuming and boring), and endless frigging around with the minor polemical angles is destabilizing. See further below this section.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@80.212.15.123, Personally I think your principle is not wrong but you need to look at the details of how to do this. There are lots of articles we could report but in sense we have a whole article for that, and it is also not an easy one to work on. See Genetic studies on Jews. Part of the problem is that we have no good secondary sources to tell us that the literature says "x". So we are forced to basically list out all the main research articles, which all disagree with each other and are clearly inconclusive. We don't have room for that approach on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Fishydonei. Tnx. I've got yr number now: the quarrelous type who doesn't respect facts not concurrent with yr views, no matter how clear, and willing to waste everybody's time in order to stay bigoted yrself through half-baked arguments. Btw, that's "panta rei", alternative transliteration from the Greek - but you're not clever enough to get that, in being tendentiously clever. You're a disgrace. - Can't be bothered any more with you. * @All: I tried to contribute important new info re the issue not presented well elsewhere (no matter what Fishydoni claims), but here Wikipedia's no longer a place for updated facts, only updated prejudices - at least when it comes to the strangely fact-hating religion called "jewish". I'm outta here, Fishy. Go play in your mental sandbox - alone. Hope smbd deletes you for yr low-brow edit warring soon.

80.212.15.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the portmanteau 'quarrelous' (+quarrel + querlous). Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Re Nishidani's edit-warring: The history of this page demonstrates how Nishidani consistently hijacks the contents to fit his purposes. It's nonetheless to be hoped that Nishidani will allow simple ref.s to recent research to remain. The opposite is obvious vandalism, and hopefully isn't accepted by Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.15.123 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It has never been adequately clarified what my ostensibly devious 'purpose' is in 'hijacking' this article. If anyone can finger the POV I am supposed to bring to this article, as opposed to experience in rewriting contorted POV-ridden articles so that they pass GA or close in on FA quality, by all means set forth the evidence. Otherwise shut up.
Are you having fun, Nixidonee - or are you just a fanatic with too much time on yr hands (and feet, and everywhere else)? - Get a life, and let facts remain ref.ed to in this article. 80.212.15.123 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No. I work here, as opposed to foolin' round. I have placed the bit you want in [The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory here]. where all deeper discussion of this should go. In fact Shalom11111's whole section is already there, and waiting 'expansion' there, as promised. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Nishidani. Respecting that you may be sincere now, the ref. to Costa et al has been edited and placed in a btr context in the paragraph. With the Elhaik ref (255) included, so should the ref to Costa et al. - in proper context, as you aver. 80.212.15.123 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As to jamming in more 'stuff' re genetics, there is an appropriate subpage for this, and your edit only reduplicates with a secondary source what is already mentioned re Costa and co., higher up. It's called careful editing - to read the whole page and consult the talk page before walking in with info that only shows one hasn't read the relevant section. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

apologies to the page

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=next&oldid=582635313 this edit contradicted thed edit summary, and Galassi did the right thing to revert me. I can only plead (a) a cresoite blocked chimney smoking out the house (b) post office closed because of electrity failure stopping one from paying due bills (c) no bars, lacking electricity, able to provide one with breakfast (d) finding one of my cats dying (e) trying for two hours to fix a double billing error on my telephone, to mention just a few things, all within three hours, before editing. It is self-evident that this material is extraneous to the article. I thought I was eliminating it.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, Gongratulations on apologizing. That was about time. You're so right that you're so wrong (though yr domestic problems are not the problem - your attitudes are). Now for the next ca. 4628 faux pas' you've performed on this article. We're all waiting for those apologies to appear here. Waiting. Waiting... 88.88.107.248 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It's no skin off my schnozz if, while being myself, I incidentally callahanded your day, though my mission in life is not one of hetero-eudaimonizing. While waiting, Vlad, or do you prefer Estragon?, you might ponder the monarchic pretensions, if not pretentiousness, of your use of the pluralis maiestatis.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Somehow, that didn't sound much like an apology - or like anything else, for that matter. Except maybe verbal hemorrhaging? - Must be the effect of the denial the Nishidani-writer demonstrates being in: totally confused. Get well soon. ;-) 80.212.13.116 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Seal Image

Latest comment: 11 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion

Utilizing the image of the star shaped seal is willfully misleading people. The six sided star is a symbol that is associated with Judaism today. But, what is known now as "The Star of David" has only been a Jewish symbol for the last two centuries or so. In the classical era, this symbol would not have had any Jewish connotation. I have encountered people on the internet posting pictures of the seal shown in this article under the assumption that it is of Jewish origin, and that is not known. For this reason, in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding, it should not exist in this article. Astragius (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

'Wilfully misleading'? Why, though I am used to this, do so many editors succumb to the temptation to think that things on this page they dislike are there because of some obscure desire to mislead or deceive readers?
You really should read the whole page. It has a specific discussion on the way the finding of such a seal in Khazaria, and al-Roy's messianism, are connected in scholarship. A.N. Poliak made the association, and Baron commented that Alroy's 'connection with the Magen David . .still awaits further elucidation and proof' (vol.3 p.329 n.40). The point is also discussed by Kevin Brook pp.122-3. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I went to read Baron from the article references, however reference "Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1957). A Social and Religious History of the Jews 3. Columbia University Press. Retrieved 26 July 2013" redirects to Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement By Michael Barkun [2].?--Tritomex (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Through Amazon books I succeed to get inside Baron book [http://www.amazon.com/Social-Religious-History-Jews-Vol/dp/0231088418/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384545124&sr=1-1#reader_0231088418] As far as I see p.329 n.40 discuss the story of Ishak, a Jewish merchant who reached China. I do not find here anything related to Magen David.--Tritomex (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I used apparently the Barkun template to do the Baron entry. I have now fixed the link. I have the 1957 book, and above cited the relevant page p.329 n.40 (from the 1952 edition see here).Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok but where "Baron commented that Alroy's 'connection with the Magen David . .still awaits further elucidation and proof'" on page 329, n40 certainly not [http://www.amazon.com/Social-Religious-History-Jews-Vol/dp/0231088418/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384545124&sr=1-1#reader_0231088418]--Tritomex (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It's on p.329 n.40 of the volume I mentioned above. If you can't find it, you have the wrong book. Please don't waste my time, or question my bona fides.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the artifact should be just stated as such, that this was supposedly found. I don't think people should deduce a huge conclusion out of it. I personally think one random artifact is not really sufficient to state a one huge answer. More artifact, different artifacts along with historical writings and debates will help it make it clear. Maybe a Jewish traveler dropped his/her artifact while travelling through the land some years or centuries later. Who knows. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Lengthy debates exist about it, pro and con. If you read the note appended, you will see no conclusions are drawn, since the evidence itself is inconclusive. I'm puzzled why the presence of an ostensible Jewish artifact in Khazaria is thought problematical, yet in any other dig elsewhere], it is acclaimed with joy.
You write:'Maybe a Jewish traveler dropped his/her artifact while travelling through the land some years or centuries later. Who knows.' Well, that 'worrying away' a thing into insignificance doesn't apply to anything found in, say, Jerusalem, though as one observer remarked on a recent unearthing in that city, which was hailed as "a breathtaking, once-in-a-lifetime discovery.”

'I was not convinced in the least by what I saw. That one little gold plate bearing Jewish symbols amid some sort of package that perhaps fell out of someone’s pocket in Jerusalem of the 7th century C.E. does not prove anything: It is simply a little gold plate bearing Jewish symbols.'

Same logic, and pointless, except to show how taboo-ridden the subject is for its perceived (and stupid) implications.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

..The hexagonal star is universal symbol used by many ancient civilizations and peoples for thousands of years. Among others, much before it became Jewish symbol it was an Islamic symbol as well خاتم سليمان Khātem Sulaymān seal of Solomon. It was also the main symbol of Turkic Islamic Karamanids dynasty which ruled over Western part of Turkey. The hexagonal star was especially popular among Anatolian beyliks. Ancient hexagonal stars were not Jewish symbols as this symbol became connected with Judaism only about 400 years ago. Contrary to this Menorah was a Jewish symbol for at-least 2 thousands of years. This is something probably known to everyone.--Tritomex (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree that it is a commonly known fact that the hexagonal star is not an exclusively Jewish symbol. That's the whole reason I have a problem with this image. Who could blame someone for coming to that conclusion when the seal image rests right next to a paragraph about Khazaria being a Jewish state. Even more misleading is the fact that the image is named "Davestar", I assume as reference to the "Star of David". Then there's the caption beneath the image, "Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear". It is indeed unclear. What indication is there that this is even an artifact of a religious nature, or from what time period it came? According to the image in question's history page, this was recovered from "The Donets River in eastern Ukraine and the other along the Don River in southern Russia." If this is true, and since it is uncited I'm not certain of that, this would mean it was recovered from an area dominated by the Khazar people. But, since it is potentially misleading and there's gaps in information about it, I just don't see what benefit there is to keeping this image apart from displaying an artifact from the period. I posit that another appropriate image of Khazar art could be found to replace this one. Or, if the image absolutely must remain, that the caption makes it clear that the symbol is indeed universal, and that any relation between it and the modern "Star of David" is coincidental. Please don't take this suggestion as an indication that I wish to censor this article or suppress the truth or anything, I simply think it would be a better article as a result. (I'm the same person as Astragius, however I'm having trouble accessing that account so I'm using this one I made and abandoned years ago. Sorry.)Wetaskiwin (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
We look at sources, see what they say, and transcribe the gist. All of us have pet theories but they are nothing for wikipedia, which is not interested in our views, but on what scholarship regards as pertinent, important, relevant. The scholarship includes it, so we have no option but to follow, like it or not.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well maybe only a small point but technical WP policy does not force us to report everything scholars say. In one direction, if scholars consistently make a big point of something then WP:NEUTRAL comes into play, forcing us more or less to report it, but going to the other extreme, if it is just something we can source from isolated digressions in reliable sources, we are not really forced to report it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on discussion seen here, I think the majority of editors do not see justified keeping the hexagonal star image with allusions to Jewish connection, especially in light of the fact that it is non sense to claim a Magen David symbol from 9th century Khazaria. There is no such thing on planet earth, as it a historically established fact that the hexagonal stars become Jewish symbol only few centuries ago.--Tritomex (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There has, as per above, been no 'discussion' here, as opposed to one or two desultory and unfocused opinions. The image bears this caption:

Seal discovered in excavations at Khazar sites. Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear.

As such, it is a seal discovered at a Khazar site, which makes it a perfectly legitimate thing to reproduce. The caption makes no mention of a Magen David. The caption then clarifies that the nature of the seal's symbolism is unknown. Some say it is Jewish, others pagan. There is an academic controversy over this in Khazar studies. Therefore we have a completely neutral, non-Magen David, description of a seal uncovered in Khazaria, and fussing over its presence is incomprehensible, particularly since the objection you make

There is no such thing on planet earth, as it a historically established fact that the hexagonal stars become Jewish symbol only few centuries ago

is already answered succinctly in the accompanying text,

One theory maintains that the Star of David, until then a decorate motif or magical emblem, assumed its national value in Jewish tradition from its symbolic use in Menachem's crusade

I.e., in plain English, the seal represented, from 9th century Khazaria, was at that period, a 'decorative motif or magical emblem', not a David Magen, something that might have assumed its national value three centuries later.
Contextually therefore, removal of this innocuous image reads as a removal of anything that might vaguely suggest that scholars theorize about a Khazar-Jewish connection, and constitutes POV pushing. Our text makes no such affirmation.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not find any reference that this particular archeological finding was ever associated with Jews. More so 4 editors think the same. If you insist on keeping this image, show us precise datas about this seal, exact places of its location and scholarly sources regarding its origin. I am sure that I will not object the inclusion of this seal if reliable sources are covering it.--Tritomex (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on our knowledge, it is not established that the hexagonal star represented a decorative motif or magical emblem among Khazars, however its out of question that it represented a Jewish symbol, as there is a huge literature from numerous sources, and there is a consensus about when (The hexagonal star) became a Jewish symbol. (700 years after the date of this seal)--Tritomex (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

'Our knowledge' is 'your lack of knowledge'. Since you reverted after misrepresenting the source used, Baron, who is authoritative and you are not, the seal goes back. You did not read what I wrote, as your response indicates. There is no identifiable consensus here, and the symbol has been on the page for yonks.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
In my country, Serbia, there is an archeological cite where a real Jewish symbol was found in the grave sometimes associated with Khazars.[3] Recently archeogenetic testings were done there, and the people buried there were of North Mongolian stock. I changeling you per WP:V to provide direct link to scholarly sources associating this seal with the text you gave.--Tritomex (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning consensus, all editors here (4) beside you voiced concerns regarding the image you posted. This is a clear case of consensus.--Tritomex (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Objections or queries were raised, and they were answered. I assume responsibility for answering exhaustively any objections based on policy or insufficient knowledge. The text used to write the caption is as follows, by Salo Wittmayer Baron:-

Ever since, it has been suggested, the six-cornered "shield of David," theretofore mainly a decorative motif or a magical emblem, began its career toward becoming the chief national-religious symbol of Judaism. Long used interchangeably with the pentagram or the "Seal of Solomon," it was attributed to David in mystic and ethical German writings from the thirteenth century on, and appeared on the Jewish flag in Prague in 1527. Thus were laid the foundations for its ultimate glorification in the nineteenth century.1957 p.204 and n.40

There is no evidence here anyone other than myself took the trouble to read the source, and its accompanying footnote which completely justify the inclusion of the seal. (Of course, now we will probably get the usual teamtag revert pattern to support its removal, I guess, as troublemakers with zilch knowledge of sources seize just one more opportunity to make serious editing difficult).Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
What you are quoting here is "The Thirteenth Tribe The Khazar Empire and its Heritage By Arthur Koestler" Nowhere you showed any association of this seal with the Jews.In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. What 1527 Prague has to do with 9th century hexagonal star? Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. You linked this archeological finding with this book [http://www.amazon.com/Social-Religious-History-Jews-Vol/dp/0231088418/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384545124&sr=1-1#reader_0231088418] with p.329 n.40, now you are linking it with p.204 and n.40?--Tritomex (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Where can it be found what Bozena Werbart published or wrote on this seal ? On the internet, what can be found is contradictory. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The text shown here has nothing to do with this particular artifact and connecting this two is WP:OR.Koestler speaks about "mystic and ethical German writings" and about "Jewish flag in Prague in 1527" while here is a seal from 9th century of unknown origin. --Tritomex (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
What you are quoting here is "The Thirteenth Tribe The Khazar Empire and its Heritage By Arthur Koestler" Nowhere you showed any association of this seal with the Jews.In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. What 1527 Prague has to do with 9th century hexagonal star? Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. You linked this archeological finding with this book [http://www.amazon.com/Social-Religious-History-Jews-Vol/dp/0231088418/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384545124&sr=1-1#reader_0231088418] with p.329 n.40, now you are linking it with p.204 and n.40?--Tritomex (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Tritomex. (a) you insisted in your first objection that the reference did not exist, and repeatedly came back to that. You refused to believe me. I have the book, you googled poorly. (b) now you are so careless that you say I am quoting Arthur Koestler. I am not. If you actually, as all editors are obliged to, check the diff, you will see that I removed the Koestler source and quoted his source directly instead. (c) I provided the direct quote from Baron. So your objections exhibit source negligance, ignoring the nature of diffs, and now questioning a statement made by one of the greatest modern authorities on Jewish history. Wikipedians should not be asked to repeatedly engage with editors who refuse to read edits and sources, but rather raise irrelevant objections questioning both. I'm close to reporting you for what is a consistent pattern of mispreresenting sources and POV pushing in he face of, and defiance of, high quality RS.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You continue with threats instead of answering my question: What this text "it has been suggested, the six-cornered "shield of David," theretofore mainly a decorative motif or a magical emblem, began its career toward becoming the chief national-religious symbol of Judaism. Long used interchangeably with the pentagram or the "Seal of Solomon," it was attributed to David in mystic and ethical German writings from the thirteenth century on, and appeared on the Jewish flag in Prague in 1527. Thus were laid the foundations for its ultimate glorification in the nineteenth century" has to do with this 1000 years old particular artifact ? Second you referenced it to Baron 1957, p. 329 n.40. (as in the text) now you are linking it to 1957 p.204 and n.40? Third the question has been asked where Bozena Werbart published or wrote on this seal ? .--Tritomex (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you refuse to read. Let's do this at primary school level. You removed this.

Seal discovered in excavations at Khazar sites. Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear.

(a) Are you doubting that the image of the seal was found at Khazar sites? Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please respond without personal insults and with respect. As you have see due to my objectivity I even helped you in your edits regarding Čelarevo (although Čelarevo was an Avar site, this is another question). There, a Jewish symbols have been found and I pointed our to this fact, showed a picture, knowing that you will add that to the article. I have no particular reason to doubt that this was unearthed in Khazar site. The problem is the text you wrote bellow. You added now this quote 'Engravings that resemble the six-pointed Star of David were found on circular Khazar relics and bronze mirrors from Sarkel and Khazarian grave fields in Upper Saltov. However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs.' However you kept the previous text in the article. This quote does not support the text you wrote in the article "Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear." It tells otherwise. (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). So change the text bellow with this quote and the matter will be solved.--Tritomex (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Progress is being made.
(b)You have 'no particular reason to doubt that this was unearthed at a Khazar site'. But, you removed it from the page, which operationally means, you removed what you accept as a Khazar artefact from the Khazar page.
That therefore is a behavioural contradiction.
It emerges that you objected to the accompanying text re Jews and pagans.
So, despite your edit, your objection is not to the seal image, but to the second part of the caption. In which case, you should have challenged the caption, not the seal. So far, is that clear?Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(c)'However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs.'
Perhaps you need me to construe what this means in English.
'these (seals) appear to be shamanic sun discs rather than (appearing to have been) made by Jews.' The main verb governing the sentence 'appear' means that the interpretation is uncertain, and it extends its force implicitly to the alternative view in the contrastive 'than clause'. This means that the writer has before him two theories, and supports one of them. Therefore the citation from Brooks is perfectly consonant with the caption's 'Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear,' (I am not happy with this, because it was also widely used at the time by Islamic peoples, but no source makes the connection)and this has nothing to do with WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. You should not make those suggestions unless your mastery of the niceties of English grammar is close to complete.
(d) If I were you, I would ask the image experts to change the jpg entry to 'Khazar seal', which is more appropriate than 'Star of David'. This would be a positive improvement to the page.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not linguistic question Nishidani, "However, rather than having been made by Jews these appear to be shamanistic sun discs" can not be translated into "Whether it is a Jewish or Pagan symbol is unclear." without original research. In your words, it could be Pagan or Jewish equally, However, in the source it appears to be shamanistic sun discs, rather than having been made by Jews . So the source clearly does not make parity between this two possibilities as you did. Appear to be and unclear are not synonymous and are usually used in opposite meaning. One possibility is likely, the second is unlikely and the existence of other possibilities are not ruled out.(Also the reason why Jews are particularly mentioned here, is obvious as this symbol became associated with Jews 700 years after) So the only thing I insist here is to have precise wording as per source with direct inline citation as per WP:V "'Engravings that resemble the six-pointed Star of David were found on circular Khazar relics and bronze mirrors from Sarkel and Khazarian grave fields in Upper Saltov. However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs.' " I think that everyone agrees, that direct citations (despite the fact that it comes from questionable source) is better than a claim which is not supported by any source.--Tritomex (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a linguistic issue among other things because you frequently, when you do read what other editors write, misapprehend the point. You do not appear to have a firm grasp of English usage, let alone wiki9 policy. The edit you just made is just another example. You gloss the seal thus:-

Engravings that resemble the six-pointed Star of David were found on circular Khazar relics. However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs

Well, this is Brook's interpretation, which is given in the supporting note. Wiki pages do not espouse any single author's views, which you do in your rewriting of the caption. The simple compromise is to elide both Jewish and pagan, and note that its significance is uncertain. You consistently have a problem with anything Jewish in Khazaria. Could I ask prevail upon you to read Ancient Jewish History:The Khazars, so that you may grasp what is obvious: that Jewish sources have no problem allowing for a Jewish-Khazar connection, or even Khazar elements in Western European Jewry (even most genetic papers allow for the possibility of some Khazar element). Though the Jewish Virtual Library source is not RS of the kind required on this page (academic sources wherever possible) it does allow any reader to understand at a glance that the kind of agonizing over implications for anything Jewish connected with Khazars belongs to POV obsessions, is alien to scholarship on the history of Judaism and to the serene scholarly analysis that has long characterized it, which this page is endeavouring to reflect. My own belief, if I had one, would be that this emblem could be as much Islamic as Jewish, but my personal considerations are irrelevant, as are your obsessions.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki pages do not espouse any single author's views, which you do in your rewriting of the caption

There are no other authors, none even mentioning this artifact discovered likely in 70s. There are no authors debating this artifact, so I don't know based on what source you wrote the text bellow the picture. Btw the picture looks like an illustration of unknown origin. Maybe it comes from K.A. Brook book. I dont know what is even the source of this image. Maybe experts should be asked here.

You consistently have a problem with anything Jewish in Khazaria.

No I dont, I just gave you a source regarding Čelarevo. I have problem with tendentious associations for which there were panty of examples in this article and in other articles..

Though the Jewish Virtual Library source is not RS of the kind required on this page

The Jewish Virtual Library is reliable source, Wexler, Sand and Koestler are not. I have nothing against using JVL as source, as I have nothing against using any other reliable source.

The only text presented so far is from K.A.Brook: Engravings that resemble the six-pointed Star of David were found on circular Khazar relics. However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs This also can not be translated to Seal discovered in excavations at Khazar sites, whose symbolic significance is uncertain

I will be absent for a week, than I will come back to resolve this question. Hopefully other editors will join the debate.--Tritomex (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I indeed hope that regular editors with some knowledge of the subject help here. Two things have been established.
Tritomex has admitted that he removed an image which he does not dispute was excavated from a Khazarian dig.
Tritomex does not want any caption on the image to refer to Judaism. I have removed the caption referring to 'Jewish or pagan' to meet that objection
I have rewritten it to underline its real symbolic significance is unknown, which is true.
The note to Salo Wittmayer Baron refers the reader to a note where he lists several works discussing the history of the Magen. The note to Brook refers also to pages where he lists several works on that subject. Readers can follow the trail if they are prepossessed by that. I do not think Tritomex's further proposal, to use Brook's personal assessment of the hexagram in the gloss, acceptable. Brook is not a qualified scholar of Khazaria (as opposed to a useful guide to much of the scholarly literature), and in any case scholars themselves have no consensus over these matters. I have sought compromises. Tritomex has not.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that is an acceptable compromise for the reasons you state.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I never said that I do not want any caption on the image to refer to Judaism. I want an accuracy in the interpretation of sources so that capitation could refer to valid sources, whatever those sources are stating. This means removing original research and providing proper capitation.
The Khazar article is not the place where the history of the Seal of David should be presented. I do not understand what is the base of quoting Baron interpenetration regarding the origin of the Seal of David in this article. His book published in 1952 and 1957 does not refer to hexagonal star emblem discovered in 1970s and the quote given is unrelated to Khazar history. More so, there are panty of sources regarding the origin of Magen David, not even one known to me associating this symbol with Khazars. Also, as I said the history of Magen David can not be part of Khazar article.
I do not understand what this quote from Barnon ("it has been suggested, the six-cornered "shield of David," theretofore mainly a decorative motif or a magical emblem, began its career toward becoming the chief national-religious symbol of Judaism. Long used interchangeably with the pentagram or the "Seal of Solomon," it was attributed to David in mystic and ethical German writings from the thirteenth century on, and appeared on the Jewish flag in Prague in 1527.)" is doing in the article regarding Khazars?
What is the relationship between this quote from 1957 book and an artifact discovered decades later (which no one known to me claimed to be Magen David?)
I have to ask also what is the source of this illustration? and how it came to this article?I did not found sources beyond K.A. Brook (and one Russian non reliable source) mentioning this artifacts. I did not find any picture, document or reference regarding this artifact. If such sources do exist they would be helpful in presenting properly sourced capitation below the picture. However if no sources regarding this artifact exists, the only rational solution is to remove the image altogether. Did anyone looked into the source of this image?--Tritomex (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It's simple then. Seals of this type are attested for Khazar sites. You have no reason to doubt, youy said, that this is, as written, an image of one such Khazar seal. So, we retain it as a Khazar emblem on the page.
You object secondly to Baron in the caption? Fine. I'll remove it.
You say Brook cannot be glossed as 'its syumbolic significance is uncertain'. Brook's page says 'A circular metal disc with a six-pointed star symbol from the context of the Khazar Khanate, interpreted by Professor Bozena Werbart of Umea University as Jewish but seen by others as shamanistic or pagan.' It has also apparently been commented on by Jonathan Shepard. My statement is perfectly consistent with the dispute Brook himself remarks on.
What cannot be done, reasonably, is remove the emblem because you personally object to any mention of a Jewish-Khazar connection on this page - everywhere in the scholarly literature this is taken as as obvious. Jews, Israelis,l scholars generally, do not suffer from your personal anxieties on this. I have made my last compromise. You haven't budged. If anything, for every concession you move on to ask for another. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not ask for any concession or rewriting outside Wikipedia rules and I do not "object any mention of a Jewish-Khazar connection" which is done through reliable source with accurate and neutral interpretation. Do we have any reliable source for this image?
I do not understand why my comments are associated with some secondary taughts? I simply ask to know from where this illustration (or image come from) I do not understand that you are not interested in this subject. As much as I get deeper in this question I have more concerns about the authenticity and reliability of this image. I hope all of us wish to have first and foremost reliable article here. Therefore if anyone has more info regarding the source of this illustration (or image) please share it here. Maybe this image should be checked by some experts too? --Tritomex (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Tritomex. 8 December midday
Your objections were to the caption, and I met them more than half way. Once done, you now backtrack and now say the problem is with the image. I've worked, you haven't. So go do some homework. If you have problems with the seal's image on wikipedia, (it is used by a large number of slavonic or east european wikipedias) by all means raise those issues with the appropriate specialists, and let me know. It is the same image, apparently, as the one on Kevin Brook's website here, accompanied with the diction:'This one is a circular metal disc, interpreted by Professor Bozena Werbart of Umea University as Jewish but seen by others as shamanistic or pagan.', which means either Jewish for some experts (Bożena Wyszomirska-Werbart was professor of history and archeology) for pagan, exactly as the original caption had it. So since you aren't challenging Brook (so far) your suspicions are just that, dislike. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Nishidani, you did not need to show the diffs as I never denied that my primarily concern was indeed the caption, however, as it turned out there are problems with both the source of the picture and the lack of reliable sources covering it too. This problems are related as there is only one source from where the image and all information about this image can come from. As I said last week, I assume that the only source for this image is Kevin Brook's book, it turned out to be his personal website. Also it turns out that no reliable source can be found regarding this artifact. We don't know who excavated it, where and when it was, and what was the opinion of experts regarding this seal. Nothing can be found about Bozena Werbart expertise as well (as noted by editor Pluto). Personally I have doubts, about the reliability of K.A. Brook book, even more about his personal website, however due to many similar cases on this page, I can not demand the removal of only this source (of questionable reliability) I stooped months ago with my demand to replace quotes from his book with other reliable sources. Therefore if the prevailing view is that such sources as K.A.Brook, are usable for this article, then proper caption based on the only source we have should be given. If K.A. Brook personal verb-site is reliable as the only source of this image, what makes his remarks on the origin of this symbol unreliable or unusable? If there is a push to keep this image in this article, and if we have only one source regarding this illustration, telling the following: ("Engravings that resemble the six-pointed Star of David were found on circular Khazar relics. However, rather than having been made by Jews, these appear to be shamanistic sun discs") what is the reason to claim that the symbolical meaning of this seal is uncertain,(wording not supported by any source) instead of presenting the claim made by the only source we have?

Finally, I will leave this image with the capitation given by Nishidani. I have strong opinion that this kind of sources (or lack of the sources for certain claims) made the reliability of this article very poor, however I am not willing to be the only editor voicing my concerns on this issue. If this would be seen as a my personal concession, at least I will have some satisfaction.--Tritomex (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Bozena Werbart was, until recently, a Polish-Swedish archeologist and historian, specializing in ancient history.
The text I cite in the article refers to Kevin's Brook's book, not to his website. We are not relying on his website. The image appeared on wiki commons, and no one has challenged it, except you. Brook's book, I have always said, can be used carefully for its indications about scholarship, but not for the interpretations of its author. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Khazar archeology

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some good articles regarding the subject which should be incorporated in the article-The European Steppes in the Middle Ages. Vol.9. The Khazarian times. Book of Collected Works/ Ed.-in-Chief A.V.Yevglevsky; Donetsk National University. – Vol.9. – Donetsk: Donetsk National University, 2012. – 444 pp. – (Proceedings in Archaeology). [4]--Tritomex (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Eyesore

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The section introduced by Shalom11111, 'Criticism of the Ashkenazi/Jewish Khazarian theory,' is a compositional disaster, false in much of its editorializing, using dubious sources and sets up a series of narrative contradictions with the rest of the text. As it stands it defiantly challenges the criteria used to source and write this article, and also repeats or distorts, using newspaper sources, much of what is already covered in this section. I copied it to The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory, inviting those who are prepossessed by this minor story to develop it there. User:Vikingsfan removed it here and here, but I will now restore the material to that main page. It, in my view, does not belong to this page, per formatting, quality of sourcing, because it is repetitive and contradicts much of what precedes and because the editor posted an expansion tag and then walked away, when it is also WP:Undue. I would appreciate input on this.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I will remove this POV patchwork of uninformed googled commentary, much of it reduplicating in skewed fashion, the other parts of this section, unless serious objections can be given for retaining it. One example of the mess it creates:-

Our text has

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

The Criticism section text has:- Historians and scientists today believe the Khazarian theory should more accurately be called a myth

The source for the latter is an article by Jon Entine

  • Forbes is not a reliable source for this article
  • Jon Entine has no status as a scholar let alone a Khazar expert
  • He is neither an historian nor a scientist
  • This is a generalization that contradicts evidence given that some historians and some scientists today are willing to entertain that hypothesis, whether we like this or not.
  • As such it abuses wiki’s neutral voice by a selective use of poor sources in order to establish a ‘truth’.
  • The word ‘myth’ is inept for an idea that has the status of a theory, with a long history of debate, and one that has had significant though not decisive scholarly support, particularly among Israeli and Jewish scholars, who are seen as 'myth-makers' but as historians concerned with the academic construction of the past. Myth suggests that all the historians cited in our text were involved in a superstitious rigging of falsehood.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Vikingsfans edit was quite correct. The inserted passage is anomalous as discussed several times here.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This entire section is reproduced on the dedicated page. I've previously supported its removal to be developed there, and Tritomex has even expressed support. So I agree that the edit by Vikingsfan was appropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think, given the time lapsed since this was suggested, and the general consensus, that we can remove it here as, as Laszlo notes, it is on the main page. I hope to begin to work on that, fix a uniform format and templates, and expand it, and this will mean going through the removed section (which is scrappy, poorly sourced and poorly written) to make it look better. I hope the original editors join us there to improve and expand it as well.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion both the criticism and the Khazarian theory has to go to special subpage,(or both should stay here) while only basic information's regarding this subject should stay in the article. It is the only neutral decision that can be done, otherwise a scientifically minoritarian view would be favourised ower the view of majority. Off course that does not mean that the whole section should stay like it is now, it can be changed, corrected. However, I do not see valid reasons to remove only the criticism of theory which is btw not considered historic by most of scientists in all fields (genetics, history, archaeology) and in same time keeping the section devoted to this theory. I have presented the results of archaeological excavations bellow which also points to this direction. In my opinion the existence of this section is needed at least because it do reflect scientific debate. .--Tritomex (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The criticism of the theory is given with great precision. It is already there, and readers are then directed to another page for more detailed criticism. Please note that the main page on criticism has ample room for extensive expansion, and yet no one of those who object on this page go ahead and improve the sister-page. They press either for erasing all mention of the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory, or, equally absurdly, major expansion so the topic will swamp the article itself.
Your opinion is just that. There is no policy-based or logical ground for your opposition. I for one wrote extensively on what was wrong with Shalom11111's 'dump' (edit). There is no respect for the page format (b) no stringent selective process is threshing out poor from acceptable sources (c)it repeats in part what is already said in related sections (d)it has in its summary of sources and generalizations a NPOV-violating tilt (e) most editors think that we are somewhat over the standard limit for articles, but still within reasonable length criteria given the intricate complexities of the subject, and Shalom11111's edit added nearly 10kb to the page (f) we had a consensus, after Greyshark's launching, without prior discussion, of an attempt at massive structural rteadjustment, that any major reworkings should be proposed and discussed on the talkpage beforehand: this addition was plunked down by a lone editor without respect for this consensus, and then he walked off.
In all of this recent behaviour, Greyshark, yourself, Lute 88, and Shalom11111 appear to cock a snook at collegial editing. There have been two consensuses recently, and both are being ignored. I left up for a week a request for comment: there were no objections to my proposal, to the contrary. So it was legitimate to excise the abusive patchwork Shalom11111 introduced. Now, at this late stage you alone register an opposition, saying there is no consensus. Well Vikingsfan, myself, Laszlo, Scarpia and Khazar think that, on this, there is, and consensus does not mean unanimity.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins/Linguistics

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit completely disrupts the logical narrative flow of the article. Where the section previously began with introductory language leading into the remainder of the section, that passage has been moved to a later section, and the article now begins awkwardly. I simply do not understand why Greyshark09 refuses to discuss reorganization of the article before making changes, despite numerous editors urging prior discussion. It unnecessarily fuels disputes, and the current edit does not entail an obvious improvement of the narrative. As you have been asked repeatedly, please discuss the reorganization you think is required here so that we may proceed without undue conflict. Why is it so hard to set forth here what you believe needs to be done? A simple outline of how you would restructure is all that is being asked, yet you continue to ignore those requests. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Khazar has a meaning. I think it is Turkic or remote Mongolian. Mongolian gazar - land, khazaar - bridle, gats - stuck, haz - bite or some other Turkic word. It is similar to Hazara. 66.110.185.244 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khazars/Archive_7&oldid=906032708"