Talk:Khazars/Archive 3

{{talka gghh rchivenav}}

Opium?

Were not the khazars involved in the opium trade that was instrumental in making the jews extremely wealthy? The reason why jews were so friendly with the khazars is because of the this opium trade, was it not?

It seems highly unlikely. Do you have any sources for your theory? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by "HonestJew"

An editor calling himself "HonestJew" has been trying to edit-war into the article the following edits. Regarding them

1. This article quotes the 1999 edition of Lewis's book, not the 1986 one.
2. Comments by Wikipedia editors about Lewis's view do not belong in articles, and are forbidden by Wikipedia's No Original Research policy.
3. Identifying researchers as "jewish scientists" [sic] is inappropriate because it a) violates WP:NOR, and b) is highly distasteful yellow badging
4. The article does not need a section on non-fiction works discussing the Khazars. If the material is relevant (as with Koestler's), it is discussed in the body of the text, and in any event the tone should be encyclopedic (i.e. phrases like "award winning book" are inappropriate).

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

you have given 0 reasons for removing my edits

there is a fiction section so i have added a non fiction section simple as that

bernard lewis's opinion is his opinion ONLY given first in 1986, it is NOT the opinion of other people. this should be clearly shown within the article. you are trying to show that other people think this way which is obviously false since a large majority of people in the middle east and around the world believe in the khazar theory. it is clearly mentioned in the article as well that the khazar theory is popular in the middle east.

the scientists who conducted the genetic tests have temselves explained in interviews that they are of jewish lineage

do not remove edits if you cannot discuss things properly HonestJew (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed any of Jayjg's criticisms. Is your argument that Bernard Lewis's opinion is not notable? If so, that is patently absurd. Even if you could cite a source for your identification of the scientists as Jewish (where are these "interviews" of which you speak) that is not relevant to the findings of the study. Your edits are inappropriate and against the clear consensus. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Khazars long and slim eyes

The iterated claim in this article that Khazars should be similar to chineses is idiotic because they come from Caucasus. I think that the fact that it is used as a pretest to demonstrate that askenazi are not descendent from khazars is a violation of Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.177.42 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

The caption of the illustration in the Government subsection "Khazar warrior with captive" But the same illustration also appears in the article of Eurasian Avars with the caption "Avar warrior with captive". Which is correct ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

there is a lack of photos and illustrations in the aritcle

add some!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.137.158 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

khazar flag

is there any resource for it's army's banners or of the state flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.71.152 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Offensive section

Even an article about an extinct medieval kingdom seems to have been infected by that most troublesome of diseases spreading through articles about history associated with some very patriotic members of an extant ethnic group - POV rants. (Though in better English than most. Well done!) I've tried to remove some of the more offensive statements in the 'relationship with Judaism' section, but they seem to keep popping up. Please remember: the article involves an issue that has been controversial because of both antisemitic and other claims which should be refuted on scholarly grounds, but in a careful, scholarly way - not in a vicious, POV way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.193 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Khazar Judaism and Kara'ism

The article makes what seems at first like a logical inference that Karaites did not convert the Khazar aristocracy to Judaism:

"Jewish figures such as Saadia Gaon made positive references to the Khazars, and they are excoriated in contemporary Karaite writings as 'bastards'; it is therefore unlikely that they adopted Karaism as some (such as Avraham Firkovich) have proposed."

Avraham Firkovich has some real problems as an academic authority, BUT... The Karaites were the only group known to be proselytizing Judaism at the time in question, and were active in the same area the Khazars operated, and after the Khazars disappeared, Karaites remained in the former kingdom, SO... It does not automatically follow that because one group of Karaites didn't like Khazaria that Khazars were not converted to Judaism by Karaites at a slightly earlier period. In fact the Karaite conversion is the most logical inference for the origin of Khazar Judaism, although the Karaite rejection of the Talmud might in itself have been rejected by later Khazar rulers. This needs to be researched in so far as it is possible.

Firkovich belonged to the remnant of Karaites in Soviet Lithuania. There are other communities and there is a bit of a gap between the communities, as one could assume there was in ancient times as well. For instance, Lithuanian Karaites will as often as not derive their ethnonym from (Qipchak) Turkic Kara, "black," while the real origin of the name is Hebrew and means "reader."

Since we don't really know how the Khazars converted to Judaism at this point, can we agree not to reject plausible theories out of hand? Thanks for your consideration. Hypatea (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The remaining Khazars who followed Judaism

After the fall of their land, the few Khazars (or small ammount of them) who kept being Jewish, left their country and were absorbed into Jewish communities of an Israelite origin which were established at those days in Poland and Russia and perhaps also in Hungary and Turkey.--DXRD (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pure speculation or you have a source to such claims ? i remember that Turkic Kypchaks and the Turkic speaking Karaites claim descendance from Khazars (not proven), while the few Khazars who migrated west and north, converted to christianity. There are some 4 vilages in Romania who claim Khazar roots (now christians), but there is no written evidense to their past. I think the link between Ashkenazi jews and Khazars was made in later 19th century than few small communities of Turkic Karaites migrated to Lithuania and Poland. Yet they remained isolated from the rabbinic Germanic speaking Jewish majority in those areas up until today.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the Khazars probably converted into Christianity and Islam after the collapse of their empire (some scholars even think that they were not-fully-converted into Judaism since they did not created any connection with the Jews of Babylonia who established the Jewish Diaspora center of that time in Babylon, and probably did not continued of being Jewish after the end of their empire, they probably converted into Judaism as a result of the convertion of the Khazar king Bolan and did not converted out of their own needs or spiritual search, so therefor they did not felt anything special about Judaism and probably most of them left it over the years after the fall of the Khazar Kingdom, and as Genetic studies on Jews shows - Ashkenazi Jews are originated from the Middle East and not from Turkey or Europe - a proof that the Khazars are NOT and can't be originated from the Khazars as many antisemites and antizionists had claimed before).--DXRD (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning/name of "Khazar"

Just noticed some similarity of "khazar" to various Mongolian language words. For instance. - Gazar - land/soil - "Hazaar/Khazaar" - bridle - Khatsar/hatsar - cheek

Khazar probably is related to "Hazara". 184.96.104.50 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not speculate, this is not sourced information.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to prove but some believe the the Khazars and the Hazaras are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.241.97 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to recent disputed changes...

This article has what seems to me a good sub-section at Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim. It describes the history of these theories, their political context and discusses mainstream scholarly debate in the area. However, earlier in the article, there is a paragraph at the end of the 'Conversion to Judaism and relations with world Jewry' section that discusses these ideas. It seemed to me that the summary paragraph and the main sub-section contradict each other. The summary paragraph focuses on theories "that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars" and describes these as being entirely from "various racial theorists[18][19] and antisemitic sources", and describes "recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[23] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support". The later sub-section is more nuanced, recognising that not all advocates of these ideas are antisemitic (although most were/are) and that the genetic evidence may support some significant non-Middle Eastern admixture to the Ashkenazim population (although not a majority non-Semitic converted Khazar origin). The earlier summary paragraph is, clearly, a summary and cannot go into the same lengths as the later sub-section. However, I sought a re-wording to better reflect the later sub-section. Two editors have reverted this in full, thus we come to the Talk page. Surely some compromise is possible. It seems to me one solution is simply to remove the earlier summary paragraph and direct people to the existing sub-section; it is slightly odd having a paragraph summarising a later sub-section like this. As it currently stands, I feel the earlier summary paragraph is failing to acknowledge the more recent debates in this field -- some of the genetic studies (Nebel et al. 2001, 2005; Behar et al. 2003), as well as the contentious Shlomo Sand -- and effectively colours the reader's view of the later, more detailed sub-section. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, the gist of the Khazar=Ashkenazi theory is that Ashkenazi Jews are mostly or completely Khazars. That is the theory that is promoted almost exclusively by antisemites, and that is the theory that has been debunked by genetic analysis. Not that they might merely have "some" Khazar ancestry; after all, it's almost certain that hundreds of millions of people, and possibly billions, have "some" Khazar ancestry. Even if one or two more recent (and frankly non-expert) authors promoting the Khazar=Ashkenazi theory are not actually antisemites, that still is not the gist of the issue, and the primary claim has still been debunked. Your presentation of the material misrepresented the real issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim section describes the history and context of the issue, rightly saying how it's been largely supported by anti-Semites, but also manages to note more recent, non-anti-Semitic developments, like S. Sand (with whom we may disagree, but we need to report the debate) and Nebel et al. (2001, 2005) and Behar et al. (2003), who are clearly experts! I think it does a good job of making clear that the Khazar=Ashkenazi theory is debunked anti-Semitism, while noting these more recent developments. Given you've not edited this section, I presume you are content with how it stands. We're not, as far as I can make out, in disagreement about the main coverage of this issue in the article. If we agree about the content of that section, the issue is not how to best describe alleged Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim, it's the role of this earlier summary paragraph. I'm happy to abandon my re-wording as being poor, but as it stands, it seems to me it doesn't represent what's in the Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim section, so I think some change would be good. The summary paragraph does not recognise any non-anti-Semitic proponents of these ideas, as the later section does. It portrays the genetic studies as being completely one-sided, whereas the later section notes that some journal papers identify significant non-Middle Eastern admixture to the Ashkenazim population. Why even have this paragraph here -- why not just have a 'see below'? Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not pure antisemitism. While they're only a minority, there are some Jews who can trace their ancestry to the Khazars. For example the Israeli singer Svika Pick. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that Svika Pick is from a Khazar origin? is this was ever stated anywhere, huh? and by the way, only 5% to maximum 8% of modern day Ashkenazi Jews posess the Eu19 mutation which might be related to the Khazars, the rest and vast majority of the Ashkenazi Jews are from Middle Eastern origin just like the vast majority of the world's modern-day Jews. Just check out the many Genetic studies on Jews that you can find over the internet to read more about it.--DXRD (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

He said that he is in a radio interview, after he was asked about his surname. TFighterPilot (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And he would know this to be a fact because... Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the kinda stuff that pass from father to son. I don't understand what's the big deal about it, there isn't a single nation on earth which kept absolute racial purity since its creation. TFighterPilot (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Passed from father to son for 50 generations? Seems unlikely, particularly as Jews didn't start picking last names until the 18th century. It's actually the kinda stuff people invent about themselves and their histories, for various reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The bare notion that a discussion of non-Semitic origin to European Jewery is per se racist is absurd, and arguably, itself racist. This is a logical fallacy found anywhere emotions run high. Studying a couple markers on 1 chromosome doesn't tell you about all the many thousands of othe rmarkers you AREN'T looking at. For goodness sake, before employing the Hitler Card and assuming facts without evidence, why not a fleshed out section in re the available, scientific evidence running the other way. Parenthetically - what do these studies say about Palestinian Arabs - do they have less of a genetic deed to the land? Do the Hitler Carders care? 68.173.231.193 (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)fealsunachta

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html - I'm primarily arguing against biased and conclusory writing. For example, the fact that rabid anti-Semites have gotten behind theory X does not mean that ALL those who have gotten behind it are racist. The above commentary stands. Assuming good faith should go hand in hand with sound reasoning, honest assessment and fair dealing. Framing this differently - is the point of the rhetoric to present all the evidence, or to denigrate some evidence a priori? For example, at a minimum, the article should present the archaelogical evidence, the literary evidence, as well as, for that matter, at least some discussion of 'what it means to trace a marker'. If hiding under all of this is the paleolithic ethic that rights and title to land are genetically conveyed, then have the decency to talk about the Canaanites, and the swirl of peoples that have moved through the Fertile Crescent for millenia. The concern as to naked racism is eminently reasonable, but it should not excuse linguistic legerdemain - or the selective application of the principles those reverting my changes in these 'hot button' areas have invoked. Lastly, and I'll have spoken my piece, as it were - the most contentious debates are those for which there is no good evidence either way. This article should show the evidence - fairly. If the result is something like... yeah, after hundreds of years there's some genetic intermingling but it's blown out of portion to delegitimize a modern nation state, then bloody well say it. I'm sure it's hard to moderate these things... particularly for emotional topics {check out the abortion or northern ireland pages}, but some of this strays into disingenuous, ultimately myopic censorship and *eisegesis* rather than honest analysis of available information. Apologies for offense caused - it was not intended. Sin a bhfuil go foill 68.173.231.193 (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)fealsunachta

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there any specific changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole article should be rewritten as it is not in any sense NPOV and incorporates a catalog of logical fallacies throughout. The most predominant is that because some questionable or downright nasty nonacademic groups are interested in a theory, the theory must be dismissed. Sorry, but that is crappy science. The question is 'To what extent are Khazarians represented in the Ashkenazi population?' and not 'Who is on "our side" and who is against us?' I agree largely with 68.173.231.193 that this whole article smells of political agenda and name-calling at the expense of good science and the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.171.168 (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there any specific changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not really agree with the style of Jayjg's response, but in practice I must agree that the complaints being made above do not lead to any obvious practical advice. The article does not currently say that "the theory must be dismissed", and it does not really strongly imply it. It only mentions that the theory has been attached to questionable motives, which is true unfortunately. So that being the case, what is being proposed seems to be removal of true information, because it could give a misleading impression? But that is a bit difficult to justify on WP because of very important attachment to the WP:NOTE and WP:NEUTRAL concepts, which tend to make it harder to argue for removal of something which can be well sourced, than to argue for adding something which is well sourced. If you think information is being presented in a misleading imbalanced way then it is best to give extra balancing information; and on this article that is what has historically happened, with people putting in reference to well sourced scientific studies (with Jewish authors) which take the old theory seriously. That seems to me to be the right approach?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

"Tzitzak, who was baptized as Irene, became famous for her wedding gown, which started a fashion craze in Constantinople for a type of robe (for men) called tzitzakion. Their son Leo (Leo IV) would be better known as "Leo the Khazar"." If you click on the Tzitzak it says that she is usually mistaken for Irene, who is her daughter in law. This needs clarification and research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.245.38 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

so many maps but only 1 illustration

this is a major problem, it damages the atrticle - for my opinion, more non-map visualisations must be imported to the article immidiatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.2.78 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does Bernard Lewis "state" while Shlomo Sand "claim" ?

Why is text in this article from Bernard Lewis presented as "state" while Shlomo Sand is presented as "claim" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent move from "Khazars" to "Khazar Empire"

It's a highly important article, and I believe that such moves shouldn't be made without proper discussion.

• Similar articles in almost all other languages are about the ethnic group, not about the state, as it is seen from their titles.
• WhatLinksHere shows that there just 4 direct links to the Khazar Empire, while there are hundreds and hundreds of links to Khazar Khaganate, Khazar and Khazars
• Both the terms Khazar and Khaganate are authentic Turkic words, while "Empire" is an alien term.
• "Khazars" gives 4 times more Google hits compared to "Khazar Empire".

That's why I think the article should be moved back. GreyHood ^Talk 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on this proposal. GreyHood ^Talk 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is really about the empire/khaganate, not just the who lived in it, so it seems to me that naming the article after the political entity makes more sense than naming it after the people(s) who lived there. Also, "Khazar Empire" gets 2920 gbook hits; "Khazar Khaganate" gets 222. WP:COMMONNAME would strongly indicate the name should be left at "Khazar Empire". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And "Khazars" get 66,600 gbook hits. The article is about the empire/khaganate AND the people who established it, and most links to the article go via Khazar and Khazars. Perhaps the best solution would be establishing two separate articles, one for the people and the other for the state (though there is few to nothing Khazar history outside of the Khazar Khaganate history). While we have one common article, it certainly should be "Khazars". GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dontbesogullible writes:
In my opinion, this article should stay as "Khazar Empire" OR "Khazar Khaganate" OR "Khazaria". Because it has MORE information about the state they have established than the people that include within the State. It gives information about the entity Khazars have created. 15:04, 29 March 2011 (GMT)^Talk

So... if something is missing from Wikipedia, can you add to the article and improve it? Please see it that way. All articles are here to be improved. If something is missing from an article that is not always a good reason to change its title. It might just be a sign that more work needs to be done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved and the editors can split out the people into a new article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Khazars → Khazar Empire — This article should stay as "Khazar Empire" OR "Khazar Khaganate" OR "Khazaria". Because it has MORE information about the state they have established than the people that include within the State. It gives information about the entity Khazars have created. Dontbesogullible (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per the reasons already given in discussion above. For convenience, I'll reinstate them here.

• Similar articles in almost all other languages are about the ethnic group, not about the state, as it is seen from their titles.
• WhatLinksHere shows that there are just 4 direct links to the Khazar Empire, while there are hundreds and hundreds of links to Khazar Khaganate, Khazar and Khazars
• "Khazars" gives 4 times more Google hits compared to "Khazar Empire".
• "Khazars" get 66,600 gbook hits, while "Khazar Empire" gets 2920 gbook hits; "Khazar Khaganate" gets 222.

In its current state the article is about the empire/khaganate AND the people who established it (though there is little to nothing Khazar history outside of the history of Khazar Khaganate), and most links to the article go via Khazar and Khazars. Perhaps the best solution would be establishing two separate articles, one for the people and the other for the state. While we have one common article, it should be "Khazars". One may start the article about the state from one of the redirects; in this case I have to remind that both the terms Khazar and Khaganate are authentic Turkic words, while "Empire" is an alien term (it might be more common in English books, though; anyway the question of naming of the state article won't be easy). GreyHood ^Talk 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Split the state and the people should be two separate articles. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support the move. The current article is primarily about the state. Then split the information on the people into a separate article. I have been surprised over the years that the article didn't have the title of the state. —  AjaxSmack  15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This shows, that the entry is out of balance - what is racistic remarks doing here? : "The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[26][27] and antisemitic sources[27][28][29][30] in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.198.164 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what reliable sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of photos, and Graphical illustrations in the article

Also, the Text-Images relation in the article should be reformed.

this is a delicate article, things here must be shown detailed as possible.

Many thanks to the editors. 79.183.27.165 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course improvement would by definition be good. But can you be more specific about what you are thinking of as a needed improvement?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For example; show some weapons of the period, show the images from the excavations in the Volga river in the link below;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425687,00.html

showing pictures of Krymchaks, Karaites, and other Crimean & Caucasian jews claming Khazarian ancestry. show a portrait of Ibn-fadlan. showing pictures of historical texts which referring to the Khazars, showing A picture of the Book "The Kuzari" (Jewish text Loosely based upon Khazar history).

and if someone will Mind draw this; a Khazarian army \ battalion marches... Many thanks. 79.183.27.165 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Karaite inscription in Alsószentmihály

Recently, my contributions were removed. I undid but I also improved based on the critics: I deleted the external link to the RovasPedia and also I improved some spelling mistakes. Please, point out if there is any more grammar mistake. Also, please, consider that my contribution cites many references to officially acknowledged scholars, e.g., Turkologist Prof. András Róna-Tas. --Rovasscript (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction mentions Khazars fighting against the Muslims as far back as 622, while Muhammad was still alive. Problem is, not only is 622 AD 1 AH (Anno Hegirae) in the Muslim calendar, and thus the Muslims were unlikely to have made contact with the Khazars (since at the time, their influence extended only to Medina), but the Rashidun Caliphate did not reach the Transcaucasus until the 640s, well after the Prophet's death. The citation for that particular sentence only references Muhammad's birth and death date. Someone may need to clean that up. Brokenwit (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

duplication

The paragraph that ends with ref [15] is repeated with ref [19] and those two references are also duplicates. Skipper2 21 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Words close to Mongolian language

Have been reading about Khazars and its article just now and found many words that are identical in modern Mongolian language. Whether the original Khazar peoples were actually Mongolians or Turkic is up for debate, but list of similar words to Mongolian: - Irbis - close to "irves" (snow leopard) - Bulan - "corner" in Mongolian language - Zachariah - "zahirah" meaning "to govern" as in "zahiral" (boss/governor)

I'm not saying these are specifically Mongolian words. They could be Turkic words. I don't know Turkic words at all. Just some info. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Hunempire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hunempire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversion to Karaite Judaism

The line: "During the 8th century, the Khazar royalty and much of the aristocracy converted to a form of Karaite Judaism," is not accepted as anything other than speculation. There is debate over the size and scope of the conversion(s); the date(s) and the nature of the conversion(s). Avraham Firkovich is not regarded as a reputable source. Please edit to something along the lines of: "During the 8th century, the Khazar royalty, and perhaps much of the aristocracy, converted to Judaism," or I will. Thank you. LarG (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just a passerby here, so I hope I am not doing damage. I have made this paragraph more scholarly, but other parts of the article are still (at least) as disputable. Sasha (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Better! The Karaite movement is believed to date from the late Ninth Century {per Shapira, Dan D. Y.} LarG (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Antisemitism" in the section "Theory of Khazar Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews"

There are several references to "antisemitism" and "antizionism" in this article. In all cases, these are at best conjectural. In a few cases, their usage seems manipulative as if the author is attempting to undermine the opposing argument with a characterization of source racism as opposed to arguing the point objectively. That is, at best, trickery and falls short of proper analysis. Moreover, simply because more recent studies have shown otherwise, historical studies are not necessarily thereby null and void: they ought to be given equal consideration, not swept away (yet again) by characterizations of racism or antiquity. The use of the word "antisemitism" in reference to the Ashkenazi Jews is simply incorrect and unsuitable for a Wikipedia article: it has been shown through DNA studies that the Ashkenazi Jews are possibly not semites while the Palestinians most undoubtedly are. Also, the word "semite" refers to a language group, not a race, so to infer "antisemitism" relating only to the Ashkenazi Jews is simply false. Considering that it seems impossible to be racist against a language group, I believe this portion of the article has been grossly manipulated and should be given little merit as an objective analysis of the question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.109.80 (talk • contribs)

I'll try to keep this brief.

1. Wikipedia relies on the findings of reliable secondary sources. This article reproduces what such sources say about the Khazar theory and antisemitism.
2. Modern science and studies are inevitably considered more reliable than "historical" ones. Science moves on, new findings all the time, and new studies are aware of the contents of old ones, and take them into account.
3. For the interminable and rather idiotic argument about whether "antisemitism" is a misnomer, see Antisemitism#Etymology and usage. English is not a logical language; live with it.
4. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Ashkenazi Jews have adopted a Semitic language, Semitic religion, and pretty much every aspect of a Semitic culture, and typically meet rabbis' definitions of who is Jewish. While I'm not saying you have anything against them, the "they're not Semites because of their DNA" smacks a little too much of someone trying to pull their heritage out from under them (which is why the claim was advocated by antisemites, so they could dodge that label and still get to hate Jews). Also, more recent genetic studies, such as this, reach quite the opposite conclusion than you have.

And I see you admit that "semite" refers to a language group, so what does DNA matter then? You can't have it both ways. And the concept of race has as much a cultural aspect as a biological one, if not more.

As for racism, it can apply to a culture. The UN's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defined it as: the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Sociologists define it as a system of group privilege. Before the World Wars, it was actually common for white people to be racist against other white people based on which country their ancestors were from. To say that antisemites cannot be racist against a language group is misunderstanding and twisting about how the words "semite," "antisemite," and "racist" are used in the English language. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern???

on the right, this article says: Khazaria Eastern Tourkia

Eastern??? Completely wrong! Who wrote it? Böri (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. In current usage, certainly, it's not in eastern Turkey. However, according to Tourkia, it means "in medieval Greek (9th-11th centuries), the name of the Khazar Khaganate ("eastern Tourkia") and of the Hungary ("western Tourkia")". A source for this would be convenient, however. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's good! Böri (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Source:[1] Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, why is it under "native name" in the information box? The Khazars were not Byzantine Greeks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I am going to correct it. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:10038145899999999-page-001.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:10038145899999999-page-001.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:10038145899999999-page-001.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources in infobox

"The non-Jewish origins of the Sephardic Jews" is a source that confirms that Khazars converted to Judaism.

There is another source after "Judaism" that isn't about the subject, what is it supposed to be a source for?: "Russia and Islam: A Historical Survey" The quote used says: "By the end of the eighth century the Khazar capital, Itil', and other Khazar towns had mosques... The military guard of the Khagan were predominantly Muslim." Is it for that Khazars were Muslims? how does this source confirm it? Mosques there could have been for non Khazars and how do we know that the the military guards of Khagan were Khazars? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mosque is a term used specifically for places where Muslims worship, just as synagogue is a place where Jews worship, gurdwara is a place where Sikhs worship, etc. We have no reason to believe the Khagan's guards were foreigners, unless you have a source indicating as much. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that khazars were Muslim. And the source is behind Judaism, so it is placed inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I red in a book that the Chasares had an turkic khan and warrior caste until the jews could drove them off and ursurp Power in the tribe. A mingling of the tribe did not happen, so if the Turks element were muslims(like the Bolgars in the north) they would surely use mosques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.210.227 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kazar chronicles image

Why the use of the image containing the historical event? Is it a picture of an old book? If so and than the book should be mentioned. If not then it would be better to replace the picture with a wikitable.Scafloc (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourced information cannot be changed without giving the page where the source makes the alleged statement

Unfortunately, I will have to revert the changes recently made by editor Kaz, because content was inserted that cannot be verified with the reliable source in which the information is based. The editor did not check the source/reference before changing the content. warshy^talk 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing the same old POV Warshy. I sincerely implore you to look at your actions objectively and ask yourself why you are letting this get personal for you. What has any of this got to do with you really? What is it exactly that you have against Karaims? With all the best intentions I recommend you step back and take a break for a while. Kaz 11:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

confused term in the lede

"Paleo-Caucasian peoples" - I seriously doubt the source is claiming this - it is probably referring to inhabitants of the Caucasus region, not the people of 10,000 B.C. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Study support Khazar theory

In August 2012, Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Israeli-Elhaik published a study titled "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" that shows compelling genetic evidence that support the Khazarian hypothesis.http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.1092.pdf 72.53.146.220 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Elhaik wrote something considerably more complex than that, but in any event his study was neither published nor peer reviewed, so we can't use it. arXiv is a an archive for preprints of articles. If it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we can re-visit what it says at that time. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It was found unreliable in WP:RSN[2]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is there. so it does indeed seem to be a reliable source. you are using a strawman argument that its not reviewed by "common people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.3 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.237.31 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.16.63 (talk)

Having moved material here from the invention of the jewish people article, i have just seen this. Elhaik's article is referenced by Hareetz, is that not considered a RS? I followed Jayjig's link to the RS noticeboard, but could not see any discussion relating to the Genome Biology and Evolution site. If this journal is not considered acceptable because it is not peer reviewed, then does that also apply to the use of the American journal of human genomics, as well? That also appears to be an online publication, and i can see nothing that says that is peer reviewed. Regards.Do not collect (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)sock

It is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Oxford University Press. Peer-review is indicated here. Zero^talk 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

zero0000 thank you, i see that it is indeed peer reviewed.Do not collect (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)sock

note that in Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries, the following authors are listed as having speculated on the possiblity of a major Khazar or other European originfor Ashkenazi Jews (Baron 1957; Dunlop 1967; Ben-Sasson 1976; Keys 1999), — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do not collect (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC) sock

it seems that not only has this paper been peer reviewed, but the review comments have been made public. http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/ Do not collect (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)sock

SPLIT

This article is too long. I think Khazar Khaganate deserves its own page in my opinion because it lasted more than 400 years. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues. I recommend it be cleaned up before a split is done. This is to prevent one two articles created from becoming a bad content dumping ground.--RebekahThorn (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm with RebekahThorn on this one. Op47 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Jews-are-Khazars-no-they-aren't stuff should be split off into a separate article. That's the only plausible way this article is ever going to reach a high standard. Zero^talk 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with zero. Some of those sections are unbelievably bad, and should be excised and dumped rather quickly elsewhere. Cleaning up bad stuff leads only to edit wars and challenges, which distract from the composition of a page whose material, on the history of the khaganate, is far easier to fix, because despite the complexities of the subject, it does not excite the usual obsessive POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Youngdro2

You have broken here again 3RR, by the way Dr OStrrer deals with Khazars in his book, while ZD does not. Please do immediate self revert.--Tritomex (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

what a crappy article

I came here to add a new scholarly source (an argument based on Arabic sources that the Khazar king didn't convert to Judaism at all) but I can't bear to be associated with such a turd of an article. Uggh, how disgusting. Zero^talk 10:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Muhammed in Medina in 622, Rabiah in the Caucasus in 642

Muhammed was still in Medina in 622 and had not yet unified the Arab tribes to be attacking in the Caucasus at that time, according to the page on Muhammed and numerous other sources. Abd ar-Rahman was in the Caucasus in 642 according to the page on the Arab–Khazar Wars. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant material.

This text should be removed as it is not relevant to this article's subject. In 1971 John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha) also took up this theme, insisting that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews. According to Benny Morris: Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners.[56] the claim that the Palestinians are related to Judeans is not the same as the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are related to the Khazars. Unless Glubb makes the latter claim then this is not relevant. I will therefore remove it.Do not collect (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course it cuts both ways:

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

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

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

Why Khan's blog is inadmissible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is very important to point out that Elhaik do not have any qualifications, regarding the history of Khazars, Judeans, Druze, Armenians or Georgians as well. Also his claims goes against all known data from both Jewish history and genetics. Elhaik publications are not covered by any academic book from this field, nor is his work cited, commented or approved by any population geneticists. Prior to this article he was not involved in human population genetics, as far as I know. Concerning Rhazib Khan he works for prestigious British newspaper The Guardian, [3] His work in biological sciences has been cited in many books like those of Thom Hartmann [4] by scientists Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" other authors like Tim Tyler "Memetics: Memes and the Science of Cultural Evolution" [5] Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think By Elaine Howard Ecklund.. His work has been covered by The New York Times and other prestigious medias. --Tritomex (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting academic paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flensing the blubber. A suggestion for the lead

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

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

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

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

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

wikt:𐰏𐰀𐰔𐰀𐰺

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

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

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

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

I was just coming back to take it out now, but it had already been removed. Thanks for the feedback, anyway. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Stuff elided

Language:

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

The name "Khazar" is found in numerous languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New suggestion for the introduction

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

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

Some scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe, while many other scholars reject this hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea that the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe stem from a foundational core of Khazars dates back to Hugo von Kutschera (1910) and the Israeli historian Abraham N. Poliak (1944) The theory gained some notoriety with the publication of Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe. which was widely dismissed as a fantasy, and a somewhat dangerous one. Israel’s ambassador to Britain branded it ‘an anti-Semitic action financed by the Palestinians,’ while Bernard Lewis argued it has no evidence to support it and was ignored by all serious scholars. - Raphael Patai, however, defended it, and several amateur self-publishing researchers, such as Boris Altschüler (1994) and Kevin Alan Brook, kept the thesis in the public eye. The theory has been occasionally manipulated to deny Jewish nationhood. Recently, a variety of approaches, from linguistics (Paul Wexler) to historiography (Shlomo Sand) and population genetics (Eran Elhaik) has revived support for and interest in the theory. In broad academic perspective, both the idea that the Khazars converted en masse to Judaism, and the suggestion they emigrated to form the core population of Ashkenazi Jewry, remain highly polemical issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm moving the contentious bit back here, given the obvious lack of consensus, and quite valid concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Sand isn't really qualified to comment on the topic, and Wexler's linguistic views are essentially unique to him, as are Elhaik's genetic views. One cannot give significant weight to WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG issues, and certainly not in a lede. Now, the sentence in question is this one:

Some scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe, while many other scholars reject this hypothesis.

Keeping in mind WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, are there any even remotely qualified scholars who support the view, aside from Wexler and Elhaik? If so, who are they? And if it's just Wexler and Elhaik, how can we re-word the sentence so that it complies with WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg, there was not really a lack on consensus, but let's discuss it again if you want to. Concerning WP:UNDUE, I could heartily agree if it was only Wexler, or only Sand, or only Elhaik. But how many "onlys" do we need? And as you know, these three aren't the only ones either. What is more, Elhaik's study is very recent (published this year), and it is published in a highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. That means that several experts in the field have read and evaluated the study and found it convincing enough to be publish. Shlomo Sand, for his part, is professor of history at Tel Aviv University. His book about this topic has been translated into (at least) seven languages. This does not mean that they are right, but it probably does mean that we cannot just slap WP:UNDUE on them.Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as noted, Sand is not relevant here, because we're discussing medieval history in Western Asia, not any of Sand's areas of expertise (nationalism, film as history, French intellectual history, or even modern Hebrew historiography). That leaves Wexler, whose "relexified Sorbian" views are apparently unique to him, and Elhaik's extremely recent study, a primary source containing views that are apparently unique to him. Are there any secondary sources that support these views? Are there any other qualified scholars that agree with them? If so, please name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to argue for the Khazar hypothesis for the simply reason that I don't believe in it. Perhaps there's a small ancestral Khazar part in modern Ashkenazim, but if there is, I believe it's small. What I've tried to explain, at length, to Tritomex is that my personal views aren't important here. Regarding the actual question, I beliee Tritomex and you are perfectly right. If some user tried to edit this page to say that the Ashkenazim are Khazars, I would fight it with facts. Having said that, we cannot deny that the main rason the Khazars are noted today is because of their connection to Judaism. My idea of how this article should be, when finished, is that the neutral reader who comes here should be informed about the different theories that exist, but leave knowing that the vast majority of experts reject the Khazar theory. The way to achieve that is through a good, fact-based article that discusses the matter calmly, not by slapping WP:UNDUE on a theory that neither you nor I believe in, but which nevertheless exists.Jeppiz (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd both like to see the same outcome for this article (and every article); informative, well-written prose that complies with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Ah, but how to achieve that? One of the things WP:UNDUE enjoins us to do is to note which are majority opinions, which are minority opinions, and which are fringe, and weight the prose in the article accordingly. Wikipedia:Fringe theories states quite clearly: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream ideas". That is why we must assess the relevant scholarship. So far we have Wexler and Elhaik as relevant scholars supporting this view. What we must decide now is whether their view is "significant minority" or "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (see WP:UNDUE). If it's only these two relevant scholars, then we are pushed toward the latter. That's why I'm looking for other relevant sources that support them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Jayjg observations, especially I am happy that a neutral editor uninvolved in the disputes regarding the same issue on other articles is now here.--Tritomex (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg can not be called a neutral editor in this subject. Israeli and Jewish peoples genetic background is highly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg.

A full week passed with several editors mulling both the structure, totally unacceptable nature of, this pathetic mishmash. One did us the courtesy of proposing a deep reorganization (no objections) Some of us then starting proposing a drastically trimmed down lead, two version proposed, which lead to comments and then approval. (c) Tritomex intervened on a single issue misreading, as is his habit, everything as though the work here was fashioned to make a thesis. (d) no one could see any logic to his inconsequential remarks.(e) The consensual matter was entered into the lead (f) Tritomex was asked to kindly hold off until the redraft (99% of which does not deal with anything contentious (g) He did 3 atrocious edits that both violated policy and consensus and (h) You step in, wave policy based on several assumptions as many as five editors here and elsewhere have dismissed.

The impression is that you know how to evaluate everything, and other experienced editors are, despite agreement, all mistaken.

The sum effect is to endorse the behaviour of a notoriously poor editor and to lend support to the disruption of a page which is full of dumb sources, poor organization, stupid irrelevancies, that has languished for years because of edit-warring by POV pushers and incompetents.

Could you do a favour, and just wait till the whole page is restructured, rewritten and resourced. It can be done in a few days, with good will. The whole problem with this page was a lack of sensible and informed, competent editors expressing an intention to fix its major defects. We have that now, and raising large scale complaints over the usual trivialities at this point is not conducive to fixing at least 99% of the crap here.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jayjg, I also think that the best way to get what Tritomex and you want, a more balanced article, is to let good editors work on that. The biggest concern about Tritomex's editing is in my opinion the way that discussions and edits are held up and distorted and blocked. That is not realistic way to make sure the article is more balanced, it will only attract drama and keep the article in a very bad state. (Same for the other affected article.) Just to address your sourcing point above, of course I am sure you realize that basically all genetics sources on this matter are "arguably" primary, but the primary/secondary distinction does not always work for every discipline. Geneticists (for better or worse) tend to use journal articles containing primary information to also keep score on secondary remarks. The point is that Elhaik's merits have been argued to death and taken to various noticeboards already, and that article is certainly as strong as any of the others. Furthermore some of the things about this paper which cause concerns (such as the choice of proxy modern populations, and the willingness to consider the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi origins) are also characteristics of other genetics articles such as Doran Behar's (as you surely know from your past debates on this article), so we can not say they are "redflag" on that basis. The trick for this particular article is to find a balanced way to report all this which does not overplay the importance of genetics itself, especially when the geneticists rely on assumptions about history. But simple censorship about the whole subject of geneticists weighing in on this obviously won't stand, neither will making special allowances for blogs, and Tritomex's straight out obstructivism is not also not making things better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani, you should not edit unsourced contagiousness claims without providing any source and than asking everyone to "hold up " until you find sources for your claims. Also please do not evaluate other editors as you did above with Jayjg after doing the same to myself. To ask Jayjg to "wait" until you restructure , rewrite and resource this page is something that I can not even comment. I support the need for balanced approach to this article which means proposing WP:RS for every claim and thesis and which means presenting all claims in line with WP:UNDUE. --Tritomex (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not just ask me. I always provide sources for article edits. I never edit without a book at my elbow or several windows of sources in front of me. I wish that were the norm. I asked Jayjg to wait as a courtesy. This article will be thoroughly rewritten from top to bottom in a week if the congenial atmosphere of several editors who decided to do that is allowed an untroubled span of days to do what they set out to do, without getting bogged down with queries over what is a very minor issue (that has to be addressed. Addressing just your concerns has wasted hours of time better spent on the very arduous task of thoroughly examining the available sources, highly technical, and summarizing them neutrally. You have objected only to anything dealing with Jewish identity. The page is not about that. It is about the Khazars, and that is our primary concern. As Jayjg himself said, the article does need a thorough rehaul (anything from Khazaria.com, an unreliable source, has to be rooted out). A few of us are willing to spend several days doing just that. Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How's that for irony, after too many comments to count about other editors, Tritomex has now decided that nobody should evaluate other editors. But better late than never, and I fully agree with him. I thus take it that from now on, Tritomex won't evaluate any other editor. As for restructuring the article, I wholeheartedly welcome Jayjg to take part and to offer comments and suggestions, and take part in the discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would add that this edit breaks all the rules of correct procedure, WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. My proposal was made on the 8th before several editors. It was adjusted in the so-called 'contentious' bit you removed, by Jeppiz. I accepted that modification, asked for imput. A fw editors approved, others raised no objections. Only Tritomex objected (leave aside Shrike who regularly pops up out of nowhere whenever Tritomex slips up, to back him mechanically with an endorsement), and, as documented below, his objections are incomprehensible, confused not based on any familiarity with the niceties of policy. I notified the page after 3 days of waiting, that this text appeared to have consensus, by which I mean Jeppiz, Andrew Lancaster, Zero,Laszlo Panaflex and Nishidani approved, had no objections to, or signalled that it was okay and was ready for inclusion into the article. Against this, only Tritomex persisted in arguing, and immediately challenged the consensual edit. You have intervened to removed it with the edit summary 'Removed contentious bit back to talk'. That ignores that a good consensus on the talk page had been secured, and that only, until you reverted the last line, Tritomex dissented. WP:CONSENSUS, as you know, does not means 'unanimity'. Stepping in when a consensus exists, to challenge it, and immediately editing against that consensus, is incorrect. Your own objections raise the stakes, at this late state to 3 vs.5. But they are no grounds for removing all or part of the consensual lead. Lastly, the bit you removed summed up per WP:LEAD an argument which must be covered on the page. As Zero said, Khazars rings the 'Jewish connection' bell in most minds, therefore this contentious fact in Khazar studies has to be registered. I have provided a provisory draft above of this, a proposed last section which says all that needs to be said. If anyone wants to go into the details they should do it on another page. The proper procedure therefore is to restore that sentence to the lead. If you wish to challenge it, provide detailed arguments, not policy flag waving that assumes you alone have understood the issue.

I personally, though you are entitled not to believe me, think this is a minor part of the reality of the Khazars, and that most of the page should deal with origins, history and linguistics, the military actions, diplomatic contacts, expansion of settlements, dissolution of the Empire, etc., and that all controversies about genetics, Khazar and Jewish, Khazar/Jewish, are utterly stupid and irrelevant for such a page, since the Khazars, as the draft of the whole paper I am preparing shows, were a profoundly ethnically culturally and religiously diverse confederation of peoples - that's what the best secondary sources state repeatedly, - and so there should be no identity fixation dominating the page, concerned with fingering some master code, or Dan Brown type of obsession about Khazars and Ashkenazi,- a small but legitimate issue- (See Peter Golden on whose remark ‘the conversion of significant elements of the Khazars to Judaism and the role of Khazarian Jewry (undoubtedly a community of multiple origins) in the shaping of modern Eastern European Jewish communities remain highly polemical issue(s).' pp.9-10, part of the lead sentence you removed is buttressed, there are several other good sources for this) that unravels some hypothetical ethnic/biological identity. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to the introduction. Tritomex and Jayjg have raised concerns that the introduction would give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view. I think they are right to raise that concern and as the author of the short paragraph in question, I welcome their objections. They are both right that my first attempt at the introduction was not good. The introduction I wrote might have given the impression that there is a scientific theory that the Ashkenazim are Khazars. No such scientific theory exists, the only ones who suggest that theory are non-academics, and often with a political agenda. If Tritomex and Jayjg thought I meant to include that view, they are 100% right to object. Unfortunately, my edit was unclear on that topic. What I am referring to is the theory that there might be some Khazar ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews. That is a world of difference from saying that the Ashkenazim are only or even mainly Khazar. And while claiming that the Ashkenazim are Khazars is indeed an WP:UNDUE fringe theory, the idea that there might be some Khazar ancestry is not a fringe theory, it is suggested as a possibility in several genetic studies,,. We should of course give no space to the myth that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars, but we should not censor out the findings showing that there might be some Khazar ancestry as well.Jeppiz (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish-Ashkenazi issue is the least of our problem. I don't think we should get bogged down in it. I will note the irony however that this is what unfortunately gets editors bogged down, leaving this junk article in its slough of despond. There are many POV problems here, or issues of irrelevant stuffing of useless info.

If you want to discuss bias, look at the text that lay there for years without anyone noticing how the lead more or less said: the Khazars saved Europe from jihad

By serving as a buffer state between Christians and Muslims, the Khazars helped to block the western spread of Islam in Europe. Some scholars go to the extreme of arguing that, in the unlikely scenario Arabs had occupied what is now Ukraine and Russia, the Rus might never have been able to push south and east from the Baltic to establish Russia.(David Keys; Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization). The first major attempt of the Muslim armies to take control of the Transcaucasus came in 642. Islamic armies conquered part of Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Armenia, and what is now the modern-day post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan and surrounded the Byzantine heartland (present-day Turkey) in a pincer movement which extended from the Mediterranean to the Caucasus and the southern shores of the Caspian. This was the time when the long series of wars called the Arab–Khazar Wars began. These wars largely ended with Arab defeats, with a fairly well-known commander, Abd ar-Rahman ibn Rabiah, perishing in one instance. The Arab armies' inability to traverse the Caucasus played a role in preventing them from succeeding in their siege of the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Coupled with the military barrier presented by the Khazars themselves, this protected Europe from more direct and intensive assaults by the forces of Islam.

Historians are required to be neutral, and wiki as well. On the basis of historical facts, this skews the Khazar-Arab conflict into contemporary concerns about staving off an Islamic assault on ‘Europe’. TRhe Khazars stopped Arab-Islamic threats to Europe. If the Arabs had succeeded, poor Russia would never have been able to build its magnificent tzarist-communist empire and bright light to the savages south of MOscow, etc. The Khazars actually had very rich trading links with the Abbasid empire.

What had Europe or Russia to do with the conflict between a steppe nomadic civilisation and Islam? Nothing except that, in contemporary hindsight you can cast that period to make it reverberate with post 2001 geopolitical obsessions and terrorist fears.

No one noticed that. No one worried that the only source for this was David KeysCatastrophe: an investigation into the origins of the modern world, hardly a good source for Khazar history, since everything he writes there comes from secondary sources we already have.

Even in my edit, I retained the framing of that narrative, while simply weeding out the grosser elements of contemporary political spin.

We have to be sensitive to all particular perspectives here, and not get fixated on one or two, reflecting a eurocentric or westrern set of retrojected values of civilsation vs savages.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It' easy to tinker and fix up, not the lead which is provisory but thankfully brief, but the so-called contested last sentence, which should, despite its provisory language, never have been removed. As per WP:LEAD, something must sum up there what the last section will briefly note. Wexler 2002:536 notes that the most scholars are sceptical of the Khaar-Ashkenazi nexus, and Golden says these things are highly polemical issues. Just put in 'most' (not Tritomex's hysterical 'overwhelmingly' etc)Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the history of Khazars knows that more than 90% of medieval chronicles mentioning them comes from Arabic historians and are written in Arabic language. Here is the list of medieval

historians of the Khazars: Ibn Qutaybah,Al-Baladhuri, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ahmad ibn A'zham,Ibn al-Faqih,Ahmad ibn Rustah-Persian but his chronicles were written in Arabic, Al-Masudi, Al-Ishtakhri,Ibn Hawkal, Al-Maqdisi, Yaqut al-Hamawi,Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, Ali ibn al-Athir,Hudud al-'alam. Contrary to this there are no contemporary Jewish historians writing chronicles in Hebrew language about Khazars. In fact contemporary Jewish historians like Saadia Gaon and Benyamin Menashe Lewin whose work covering all aspects of Jewish life all over the world (known by them) writen in Judeo-Arabic do not mention the Khazars at all. The very few Jewish sources related to Khazars derive from Arabic scriptures and were written in Judeo-Arabic. So by this logic, without any exuse Arabic would be placed in first place instead of Hebrew. Also Nishadani if you believe that "The Jewish-Ashkenazi issue is the least of our problem. I don't think we should get bogged down in it." why you edited extensively this theory wherever it was possible: Genetic studies on Jews,Ashkenazi Jews,Khazars,The Invention of the Jewish People etc. In fact from your IP, most of your editing in last few months were focused on subjects related to this theory. There is a huge gap between what you are saying and what you are actually doing. I agree with Jeppiz comment above and my personal intentions are not different from those he stated above.--Tritomex (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ‎

The fact that many Arabic sources mention the Khazars is neither here nor there. This is a history article. A 10th century Jewish source mentions them. They, in part, appear to have converted to Judaism. Therefore it is wholly natural that we register the word in Hebrew. To keep it out can only be explained by some obscure fixation with cancelling an historically attested link of Jewish populations in Khazaria. Golden accepts this, as do most scholars. Editors should shut up and accept what RS say.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REUSE

Look at my record, which you skew absurdly. I have no fixation on these things, unlike certain editors, my range of interest are not obsessively ethnic. I deal with minorities often, in compliance with the most neglected issue with wikipedia (WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS) whose representation is consistently ignored or distorted by source coverage and editors with a nationalist banner to wave while repressing from view the other or any reliable information that puts their prejudices in the discomfort zone (where serious scholars thrive).Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Did they spoke Hebrew?As I understand we should bring a name in their native language and in English i am not sure if any other languages are needed--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As Golden comprehensive work about Khazars was used rightfully here as reference to many aspects of Khazar life, regarding the 10th century Hebrew scripture On page 96 Golden explains that the Kievan Letter does not bear the names of Khazar converts to Judaism, but the name of Jews who adopted local names. Referring to Torpusman comprehensive work in Khazar linguistics Golden states "In his opinion the Non Jewish names of this document are likely to be Slavic and not Turkic; This would again make Khazars vanish from the latter. Orjol 1997 has indeed shown that one of the names, if not two is Slavic"

Finally Golden states "The conclusion would be that the document signatories (or their fathers mentioned by their patronyms) who have non Jewish names would not be Khazars who converted to Judasism but Jews who adopted non Jewish names." The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, Part 8, Volume 17 P:96,--Tritomex (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)