Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry/Archive 2

Genetic Studies
There are genetic studies that support the Khazar hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabomb (talk • contribs) 06:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its already mentioned in the article and they minority read WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

These genetic studies are absolutely nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.53.141 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC) My own DNA tests, as Ashkenazi, shows approx. 90% middle eastern/east Mediterranean origin. No relations to anyone in the Khazar area, nor any relation to modern Turkish and Turkish tribes population. I do have some strong Rhine German origin (approx. 8%) and approx. 2% Persian/Iranian origin. When comparing to the “Plaestinian” population, I am approx. 90% Palestinian, with no Arab DNA- more than most of the Arab population in Israel and Palestine. And I am no different then most of the Ashkenazi population. This leads to a very precise conclusion: The large majority (and this is an understatement) of the Jewish Ashkenazi population is originated in the Rhein area, and before that from the eastern Mediterranean area. For the question of how come these hundreds of years away from the middle east, and there no significant “local” eastern European or DNA? The answer is simple. While been a group which is hunted and hated by the local population, there is only a minor chance for mixtures with the local population. (i.e. why would anyone join such a hated group?)- there are, however, some minor mixtures which absorb in the total DNA count. Still, 8% in my case of German origin, might indicate an earlier mixture, back at the time when the Rhine region, where my ancestors set for hundreds of years, was supportive with the Jews who came (early 5th-8th century). Only during the early crusades, hatred was spread against the Jewish population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.53.141 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying the above, the readers would like reading the following paper, published in 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079123 The title is "No evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.53.141 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Association with Anti-Semitism
Saying the Khazar hypothesis is associated with anti-semitism is an attempt to discredit it by associating it with something bad. It's like creationists arguing that the Nazis believed in evolution.


 * A lot of the people who have pushed the Khazar hypothesis are anti-Semites. Some of them aren't. The article makes this clear. Alephb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * While the article may make it clear that not all proponents of the Khazar hypothesis are necessarily antisemitic (which is in fact the case, given that the majority fundamental research upon which the theory is based was contributed by Jews and/or Jewish-Israelis) the designation of the article as being "about Antisemitism" rather than about Jewish history is biased and clearly intended to be misleading and defamatory. Furthermore, unless one is arguing that Jews are some kind of pure race and that racial purity is a valid basis for citizenship, this theory can not either support or refute the national legal claims of Zionists or their opponents. So designating it an antisemitic theory, because it suggests a European genetic origin to some portion of the Jewish population, implicitly presupposes that the validity Zionism rests on racist/racialist rational, which I many liberal Zionists would dispute vehemently. Therefore the categorization of this article should be changed. Betamod (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My family is Jewish, my last name is Rothenberg, but I am not, I follow the Ancient Egyptian path. Judaism is a religion. It's also an ethnicity, to an extent. Allanana79 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

False sentence in lead
In the lead it currently says: "Genetic studies on Jews have found no substantive evidence of a Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews, as opposed to evidence they have mixed Near Eastern/Mediterranean and Southern European origins." In this source it says: "In 2012, Israeli researcher Eran Elhaik published a study claiming to prove that Khazar ancestry is the single largest element in the Ashkenazi gene pool. Sand declared himself vindicated, and progressive organs such as Haaretz and The Forward trumpeted the results. Israel seems finally to have thrown in the towel. A blue-ribbon team of scholars from leading research institutions and museums has just issued a secret report to the government, acknowledging that European Jews are in fact Khazars." http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That won't load, it's a blog, and strikes me, unsighted, as a hoax. Don't believe everything you read. In fact you should never believe most of what you read (aside from studying it). Despite all the frenetic edit-lobbying against Elhaik his first paper was in the right direction probably, in pointing to a northern Anatolian component in the formation of European Jews. He erred in identifying this as specifically Khazar. His most recent results are corroborated by numerous other studies, which show the return to Israel/Palestine as an ancestral homeland-myth has no genetic basis.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole article is an obvious spoof. Alephb (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV page abuse
Elhaik is a fringe character and edits shouldn't try to downplay the facti This ia a patent abuse of core wiki policies. It asserts that:-

"A controversy arose in which established scientists dismissed his work either as 'sloppy' or 'political'. Elhaik is reported as dismissing the world's best geneticists as “liars” and “frauds"

This is false, particularly in (WP:BLP) confusing the putative status of one paper written by Elhaik (fringe?) with the person Elhaik. You are not entitled to smear him as a 'fringe character', that's borderline reportable. (a) Elhaik is an established and internationally recognized molecular biologist, like the peers he criticizes; it is not within editors' remit to take sides and contrast an ostensible 'established scientific community' against one of its members, unless you have strong scientific sources that state precisely this; (b)a number of scientists and many commentators without technical competence (Jon Entine) charged one article as being 'sloppy' and 'political'. Peer reviewed journals accept his continuing work on this topic, despite the blogosphere's chirpy confidence, and his career does not appear to have suffered because of his former views on the Khazar hypothesis. (c) the people he challenged are not 'the world's best geneticists', no source states that. Several are leading geneticists, like several hundred others. So, this WP:OR crap has to be reverted in obeisance to standard wiki principles. There is no alternative. You can't spin an article with your own creative opinions as Alephb and Shrike do here.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I only changed exactly to what the source says "While Elhaik’s work has provided ideological support for those seeking the destruction of Israel, it’s fallen flat among established scientists, who peer reviewed his work and found it sloppy at best and political at worst." and " Elhaik is now calling the world’s top geneticists “liars” and “frauds." Shrike (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything I have to say about this, I have already said at the noticeboard discussion that Nishidani created here: . I am not going to repeat the same thing at multiple locations. Alephb (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You said in the section above, the whole article is a spoof. Well, it is a survey of theories about a topic. Disturbed at times by POV pushers who keep trying to assert by the use of not very good sources that the theory is racist, anti-Jewish, untenable, a closed case. I have no view on the theory, other than that it has a long history of notable and respectable jewish scholars supporting it, and a silly history of people, some geneticists included, trying to dismiss it as racist, anti-Israel etc. All controversies are matter for Wikipedia coverage. And all such articles must be dealt with strictly per WP:NPOV. Historically, the theory is not fringe: genetically, there are only different viewpoints. Any editor walking into this should recall these basic facts in the record, and not revert blindly because of dislike, as you did.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference I made to a "spoof" above is to this article, which you yourself described as a likely hoax, and has nothing to do with this latest thing you're upset about. Alephb (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * not revert blindly because of dislike, as you did. Also, your implication about my motives is out of line. Feel free to discuss content however you like, but whatever you imagine my motives to be isn't really germane here.Alephb (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not seeing you referred to a source and not 'the article' we have here. (2) No apologies for the rest. You admit you were not familiar with the history of disputes over this article, and yet reverted me on sight, within a minute of my edit. A minute tells me all I need to know, I don't have to go into motives.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike. Please don't edit this article. You add mess onto mess. Your latest:-
 * "A controversy arose after he published his first paper in which established scientists dismissed his work either as 'sloppy' or 'political'."
 * means in English that Elhaik's Khazar paper was the first scientific paper he published. It wasn't. Jeezus!Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, you're free to do whatever you like to the article and I won't interfere. If you don't like what's in the article currently, go right ahead and fix it however you like. It'll be more productive than repeatedly talking about how unhappy you are with an earlier edit. Alephb (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929030018/http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=457&rsid=478 to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=457&rsid=478

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Taking sides WP:Undue
The genetic section (which Stampfer's study should not be mentioned, but it is) has undergone a major expansion, with separate sections on papers that are now almost 2 decades old, as if nothing had o occurred since Behar and Atzmon's studies. Elhaik et al., have substantially finetuned their hypothesis to meet criticisms, and there is no mention of this. Instead we have a large section on criticisms of what he first proposed. Highly unbalanced.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Samaritans
Shrike, you copied and pasted material from the Samaritans article
 * Did you read the article by Shen et al (2004)?
 * If so, did you verify that it mentions the Khazar hypothesis?
 * I can find no mention of the Khazar hypothesis in Shen.
 * Unless you can, this edit of yours would be an egregious WP:OR intrusion of material with no relevance to the topic of the article, and, were that the case, I suggest you should self-revert.Nishidani (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The history of the khazar hypothesis has been turned on its head
We edit collegially, don't do original research, and don't push personal or nationalist theories. The paper you link to has some interesting bits, but much of it is best suited to subpages.

So list what you consider to be problems or inadequacies, one by one, so that each can be assessed for its utility, after the sources are examined. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Many mistakes. My reservations
Forget it. Found new information. Levinzon DID write about the Kozars but way after Firkovich, but he is actually translating from a German encyclopedia that is quoting from Tadeusz Czacki who himself is quoting Ibn Hawqal and Al-Masudi. Working on the Hebrew "Ashkenazi Jewry" entry (in Hebrew...). Found all sources!! Found link that shows that much of Firkovich's info came from Kzacki...

My original post: I do not have time to correct the article now but will definitely do so in the future if someone else does not pick it up. I did, however, work on the Hebrew version of Ashkenaz Jewry where I corrected quoted and sourced everything about this topic.

Please see a detailed background article in English about this topic which I wrote. All sources can be found in the abovementioned entry on the Hebrew wikipedia.

I'll be happy to discuss it here. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reread the article. I can't see 'many mistakes'. What we have is close survey of academic sources bearing on the Khazar hypothesis, and if the extensive scholarly documentation here is also in evidence on the Hebrew sister page, fine.
 * We don't get into a technical worry over the details of say Firkovich. they go on his page, not here, since the material is very rich, and too complex to deal with here. So too with details like that of Levinson (WP:Undue weight). The choice of what to cite is not dictated by looking for primary sources, but rather by paraphrasing secondary sources which have selected the most important (influential) figures.
 * The only imbalance is the long section on rebuttals of Elhaik, who, if anyone actually troubles themselves to read the debates, has a position overlapping that of a general, if tentative consensus, that a component of the Ashkenazi genetic profile has some middle eastern sources, specifically (northern) Anatolian, not the Levant, not with Israel/Palestine as the myth makes out.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While I generally agreed with you before, I’ve had the occasion to read many of the responses to Elhaik’s work in the interim. I don’t think you’re accurately characterizing the consensus amongst geneticists. It appears most people consider his work to be fringe. It’s entirely possible that some of this is due to his appearing at conferences that were generally considered to be anti-Semitic in tone to promote his work... But the serious scholarly consensus is quite clear. No one wholeheartedly approves of his theories, and more importantly, his methodology is almost constantly impugned. Mostly having to do with his timeline. I don’t disagree with presenting his theories, but this is clearly WP:PROFRINGE territory, per the academic reception. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there is little secondary source overview of the controversy. If you read Elhaik's papers there are notable shifts, many responsive to criticisms, and agreements with people usually associated with the opposite view. He moved from a Caucasian hypothesis to an Anatolian theory, agreeing with that part of one of Doron Behar et al's study, his point being that those Jews were not 'Levantine' but Anatolian-Iranian. As to the 'antisemitic' innuendo, that is rubbish. When one speaks of a 'scholarly consensus' one needs a reliable (not newspaper opinions) academic source for the assertion, something that is difficult to obtain because none I know of sum up the shifts in Elhaik's position (as those of his critics have shifted) - as one would expect from a field of research in constant analytical reframing. As to 'fringe', people like Raphael Falk do not treat it as 'fringe': rather he handles the controversy fairly but with a skeptical eye on the incongruencies in the ideas proposed by all parties, Behar's team included 2017 pp.103-104  That is how I view the matter: the methodologies yield different results, and there is no consensus from which one can then brand any one theory 'fringe'.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Last addition
Hi Shrike, I'm from Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry page. Why do you think that the recent changes in the page shouldn't added? --The good man 232 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please show what sources support your latest addition. And why do you think it should be in WP:LEAD --Shrike (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, this source. should be in what? --The good man 232 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What you did was (a) and paste the whole quoted passage, excerpting it from the abstract of Behar et al., (infringing copyright, for which we have zero tolerance (b) without attribution (it is an opinion), you took it from a preprint, which creates bRS issues and (d) without a source. Having violated these three standard protocols for editing, you kept reverting it back in against two other experienced editors.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The addition is useless because it tends to imply the Khazar hypothesis is (a) immune to empirical testing (something anti-Semites would jump at to assert genetic evidence can't undermine their conviction Ashkenazis are Khazars). or conversely it can be read as suggesting that any such hypothesis is ipso facto unverifiable etc.etc. That selective ambiguity helps no reader. Lastly Wikipedia references to genetics are a complete mess because they list the ostensible major conclusions of  numerous papers from the late 1990s onwards, regardless of whether those provisory conclusions still stand or have been modified consensually, and we have hodgepodges of contradictory results (read closely all the conclusions about where Ashkenazi came from on this page - the summaries leave one utterly confused). Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Last edit
Skllagyook, Could you please explain to me what is wrong with the recent edit? And why not use the discussion page before starting an edit warring? --The good man 232 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You can see other reasons in Nishidani's second comment (in the last section above), where they said:
 * "The addition is useless because it tends to imply the Khazar hypothesis is (a) immune to empirical testing (something anti-Semites would jump at to assert genetic evidence can't undermine their conviction Ashkenazis are Khazars). or conversely it can be read as suggesting that any such hypothesis is ipso facto unverifiable etc.etc. That selective ambiguity helps no reader."


 * Also, as I wrote, your extract is misleading and out of context. The authors of the study found that there was no evidence of Caucasus ancestry (from the regions where the Khazars lived) in the Ashkenazi, and also conclude that a Khazar origin for them is thus very unlikely.


 * You represented the article to say that Doron Behar et al. said that the reason genetic studies had not found evidence of Khazar ancestry because "there are no clear descendants of the Khazars until there is a clear test for the genetic contribution of Ashkenazi Jews ancestry" when the study (and some others) concludes that the reason is because they show no evidence of Caucasus affinity/ancestry (but instead mainly affinities to other Jews and to southern European and Middle Eastern populations).


 * They mention in the beginning that the lack samples from of obvious Khazar descendants has in the past made comparisons difficult, but continue on to state that their large study of Caucasus (and other) populations now provides evidence against Khazar or Caucasian origins for the Ashkenazi.


 * Your addition gives the misleading impression that their study was somehow inconclusive or that they did not/could not support the Khazar theory simply because of a lack of samples, which was not the case. The addition selectively and misleadingly represents the source and its main findings (along with adding unecessary detail and length to the lead, which should be concise). Skllagyook (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was pinged but the point I made, and with cogent elaboration, has been made eloquently by Skllagyook. Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Last edit
@Skllagyook: the last edit isn't misleading, notice that I have added "but the authors of the study also found that there was no evidence of Caucasus ancestry (from the regions where the Khazars lived) in the Ashkenazi, and also conclude that a Khazar origin for them is thus very unlikely" to confirm that the genetic studies on current caucasian people's doesn't support this theory. --Averroes 22 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. I saw that you added that. But the addition of the statement (as you added here: []). that studies have not found evidence of Khazar ancestry is still misleading, and I don't see the purpose of adding it. This is because the main reason the studies conclude against Khazar (or don't support it) is not because of a lack of Khazar samples (as the addition seems to imply), but rather because of the lack of any affinity of Ashkenazim to Caucasus (and central Asian) peoples, and their affinity instead (mostly) to Middle Eastern and southern European peoples.


 * As mentioned, the study mentions in the beginning that the lack samples from of obvious Khazar descendants has in the past made comparisons difficult, but it then continues on to state that their large study of Caucasus (and other) populations now provides evidence against Khazar or Caucasian origins for the Ashkenazi (and that there is instead evidence of Mid Eastern and south European origins). That is the reason the studies conclude against the Khazar theory. Despite what you added after, as with the other user, stating that studies have not found evidence of Khazar origins because there are "no Khazar samples" gives the misleading impression that the study/studies was/were somehow inconclusive or that they did not/could not support the Khazar theory (substantially or partly) because of a lack of samples, which was not the case. The addition still seems to selectively and misleadingly represent the source and its main findings (even if you add afterward that the study found no evidence of Caucasus affinity - which seems to conflict a bit with your first addition). What you added in your edit was better than what the other user (who started the previous Talk topic above) added, but I'm afraid is nonetheless still problematic.


 * Also, as mentioned, the additions add needless length and unecessary detail and length to the lead, which should be concise. The lede is sufficient in its current WP:CONSENSUS state. The body of the article provides more detail. Skllagyook (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. So does adding this secondary reason (lack of clear descendants of the Khazars) in the Genetic Studies section instead of the introduction will solve the problem? --Averroes 22 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it would solve the problem no. There are other problems with the addition besides just overloading the lead (that I explained above). Please see my response again. Skllagyook (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So is the fact that this reason (lack of clear descendants of the Khazars) is not a "main reason" a convincing argument for removing the reason? you can't remove the reason just because it is a secondary reason. Also, this reason is an important reason explaining why this theory has not been resolved. --Averroes 22 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The source does not present it as "an important reason the theory has not been resolved." And giving that impression is thus misleading The study strongly concludes against thr Khazar theory based on the evidence (which it states is now possible in part due to the large sample used).
 * As I wrote before (slightly paraphrased): the study mentions in the beginning of the abstract that the lack samples from of obvious Khazar descendants had in the past somewhat complicated the situation, but it then continues on to state that their large study of many Caucasus (and other) populations now provides strong evidence against Khazar or Caucasian origins. It does not state that a lack of Khazar samples is a current issue, or an important reason it has not been resolved. And, the view of the study, the Khazar hypothesis is rejected. Skllagyook (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The source does not mention that this problem (lack of clear descendants of the Khazars) was a problem in "the past" and now it has been "solved". --Averroes 22 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Khazar hypothesis is no longer entertained in genetics, even by Elhaik. So what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It does not literally say that verbatim, but it does say that the problem was a problem in the past (despite indications existing them that Ashkenazis were likely mostly not Khazar) but that the problem has now been significantly mitigated/overcome due to new larger samples (covering the entire former Khazar area) that were not previously included. The study does not really present the lack of Khazar samples as a present problem (let alone an important one) or as a reason that Khazar origins have not been found.
 * From the abstract:
 * "Because the Khazar population has left no obvious modern descendants that could enable a clear test for a contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, the Khazar hypothesis has been difficult to examine using genetics. Furthermore, because only limited genetic data have been available from the Caucasus region, and because these data have been concentrated in populations that are genetically close to populations from the Middle East, the attribution of any signal of Ashkenazi-Caucasus genetic similarity to Khazar ancestry rather than shared ancestral Middle Eastern ancestry has been problematic. Here, through integration of genotypes on newly collected samples with data from several of our past studies, we have assembled the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins. This data set contains genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 1,774 samples from 106 Jewish and non- Jewish populations that span the possible regions of potential Ashkenazi ancestry: Europe, the Middle East, and the region historically associated with the Khazar Khaganate. The data set includes 261 samples from 15 populations from the Caucasus region and the region directly to its north, samples that have not previously been included alongside Ashkenazi Jewish samples in genomic studies. Employing a variety of standard techniques for the analysis of populationgenetic structure, we find that Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region." The study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264390976_No_Evidence_from_Genome-Wide_Data_of_a_Khazar_Origin_for_the_Ashkenazi_Jews
 * Skllagyook (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What the source mentions is an attempt by the researchers to mitigate the problem by new larger samples, and this does not mean that the problem no longer exists. The fact that the problem has been mitigated (regardless of the extent of the mitigation, since the study isn't mention or even refer that it has been overcome) is not also a convincing argument for removing it. Notice also that the new larger samples is an attempt to solve the "limited genetic data", not to solve "lack of clear descendants of the Khazars". --Averroes 22 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "What the source mentions is an attempt by the researchers to mitigate the problem by new larger samples, and this does not mean that the problem no longer exists."
 * There are two things here. (a) 'mitigate' means to 'mollify', 'attenuate', 'extenuate',  but I suppose you mean 'water down' (the evidence). (b) you are bringing your personal reading of sources to bear to invalidate their cogency.  That is not permitted on Wikipedia, which restricts editors to assessing the quality of a source and then, if acceptable, paraphrasing it closely. Your disgruntlement with that source is neither hear not there. Indeed to assert that the paper is driven by a blunt desire by its authors to tamper with the evidence, as you appear to insinuate, is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (a) I bring my personal reading of sources to bear to invalidate their cogency!!! The User:Skllagyook said that this problem was only in the past, and it has been overcome, but the source dosn't confirm this, can you specify where the study refers to this? Also, the problem that the source mentioned which has been alleviated is the problem "limited genetic data" not "lack of clear descendants of the Khazars". (b) The talk page is for discussing the content and not the people, so do not accuse me. --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I construed what your sentence means to me in plain English. It is actually ambiguous, worse still, because what you write can be taken to mean that the source itself explicitly says it aims, in your words 'to mitigate' a problem, that the researchers are admitting they resort to a larger data base to make that problem disappear. They're admitting they 'cook the books.' Weird. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. When I (at least) used the term "mitigate" I wasn't referring to anything like that. I simply meant that (the study was saying) the larger database allowed a basis for better and more accurate comparisons than before, though I don't know for sure what the other user meant. Perhaps "mitigate" was not the best word for me to use.Skllagyook (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly did you not understand in my words? --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani seemed to think you were using "mitigate" (or thought I was using it) in a certain way. I meant it in the sense of helping to solve (or going in the direction of solving) the previously existing problem of a lack of Khazar samples (and a smaller sample database) by using a larger database with more samples of more populations to more effectively compare them than before (nothing to do with fraud). Skllagyook (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what I meant too, so there are no misunderstanding between me and you. You can now continue defending your arguments. --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is my response on last argument you mentioned: What the source mentions is an attempt by the researchers to mitigate the problem by new larger samples, and this does not mean that the problem no longer exists. The fact that the problem has been mitigated (regardless of the extent of the mitigation, since the study isn't mention or even refer that it has been overcome) is not also a convincing argument for removing it. Notice also that the new larger samples is an attempt to solve the "limited genetic data", not to solve "lack of clear descendants of the Khazars". --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "problem has now been significantly mitigated/overcome (Skllagyook)"
 * The gloss 'overcome' left no room for the ambiguity instinct in the sentence I quoted from Averroes towards whom my note was directed. For an older generation, the word still carries the force of its Latin root mitis (mild) to assuage or reduce the pain of something. One can I see, say 'mitigate a problem', but the sense is not to resolve it (overcome/aufheben ) as much as to reduce the full impact of something that causes distress. It may be petty to, as Hardy put it, 'to note such things', but that's the way I was taught to read, by good teachers.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Genetic studies on Jews have found no substantive evidence of a Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews, according to study by Doron M. Behar and others, the reason behind this may be that there are no clear current descendants of the Khazars until there is a clear test for the genetic contribution of Ashkenazi Jews ancestry, but the authors of the study also found that there was no evidence of Caucasus ancestry (from the regions where the Khazars lived) in the Ashkenazi, and also conclude that a Khazar origin for them is thus very unlikely" Really now. Do you realize, Averroes, what, apart from the problematical punctuation in the comma after 'among Ashkenazi Jews', this means? Let me spell it out: "the reason behind this may be that there are no clear current descendants of the Khazars until there is a clear test for the genetic contribution of Ashkenazi Jews ancestry" 'Until' means that (a) in the future there may be found clear current descendants of the KIhazars' and (b) there are no 'clear' tests to ascertain 'what the genetic contribution of Ashkenazi ancestry' (?) was. Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than revert a garbled piece of prose, I've written what I think you might have intended to write or at least paraphrased the gist of what Behar et al., argued in 2013 (though note that Behar earlier had not excluded the hypothesis.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Averroes. You are engaged in a revert battle, repeating the edit-warring you have been blocked for several times, even recently regarding your behavior on this page, and probably broke 1R. The garbled nonsense you restored was analysed above, and you edited back without justifying how it is intelligible. I, for one, can make neither head or tail of what on earth that incoherent phrasing is supposed to mean, and I am a grammarian/philologist. Your namesake Ibn Rušd wrote extensively on grammar, so in respect for his memory, try to get up to snuff on its niceties. Explain it.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I.e. two reverts in 24 hours. All this was done while the talk page was discussing that section and no consensus had been reached.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (1)01:18, 11 March 2021‎  this reverts Skllagyook's 02:08, 10 March 2021‎  edit
 * (2)15:34, 11 March 2021‎ this edit  restores material I elided   14:46, 11 March 2021  here


 * (1) The language is understandable and not garbled, please explain where is the "garbled Language". (2) We're here to discuss the content, not the people, so stop personal analysis. --Averroes 22 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you have a vote of confidence in yourself. I can't understand it, and prose analysis is part of my profession. I asked you to construe it for me, and you ignored the request and restored the garbled text. Asking someone to construe a sentence is not a personal attack.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You can use in order I can see your request. What exactly do you not understand? --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't ping people. If they make edits to a page I assume they should, like me, be responsible enough to bookmark the page. If you haven't seen my request, or what I do, in your view, not understand, then you didn't read my remarks higher up, which showed precisely why that sentence does not work. If you can construe it, go ahead.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the word "until" I have fixed it here.
 * Regarding most of what you have written in the comments higher up, it is an analysis of my personality and contains no real notes on linguistic clarity of the sentence. --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Behar and others concluded such a link was unlikely, remarking that a Khazar genetic profile was unavailable given the lack of clear modern descendants of the Khazars until there is a clear test for the genetic contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry"
 * 'until' refers back to the unavailable Khazar genetic profile, (b) it suggests a problem remains whose clarification will be possible only when 'that' becomes available, (c) which is predicated on the development of 'a clear test for the genetic contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.' That is totally oblique, obscure, garbled, and (c) suggests you have no understanding of what testing Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry consists of. The sentence is unacceptable on all these grounds.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * so you object to the sentence "until there is a clear test for the genetic contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry" because it is refers back to "Khazar genetic profile was unavailable" so that you removed it here . I get it, are we going to solve the problem by going back to your edit? --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is very good of you. I think Skllagyook has since adjusted. The sentence now seems to run smoothly.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research
Where was this discussed and unanimously considered unnecessary? --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained in the last topic that the Khazar theory was a minority view when you wanted to remove the statement that it is now "mostly abandoned". It is also the case (as I mentioned then) that the majority of geneticists/genetic resarch on the topic does not support it (and rejects it). That statement is not original resarch. Skllagyook (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This sentence violates this policy WP:OR and this policy MOS:AWW. It is not allowed to add content that is not explicitly mentioned by the source, even if an editor believes that content is true. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case it is fairly clear that the Khazar theory is not suported my most contempary scholarship (again, if you can find contemporary studies supporting it, you might have a better case). The Behar study was large (many co-authors from several universities) and has been cited many times (citation counts are one measure of reliability/engagement by the mainstream) and explicitly rejected the Khazar hypothesis. And, as mentioned, it is not the only study that rejected or expressed skepticism of the Khazar hypithesis. Regarding words like "most" and "many" (per your link), these are not always considered "weasel words" and are sometimes appropriate. From the second link you gave:
 * "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution"
 * I can however, see how the use if the word "vast" in the current edit might seem a little too strong ("the vast majority of contemorary geneticists dismiss ig"). As a compromise I would propose removing the word "vast" so it reads/says "the majority of contemporary geneticists dismiss it." Skllagyook (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, but even that, It is not allowed to add content that is not explicitly mentioned by the source, that what clearly mentioned in this policy WP:OR, especially since there are some scholars who support it, such as Eran and Koestler --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Koestler is not a contemporary scholar (his work was decades ago) and he was not a geneticist (there were writers in the past that supported it, but we are talking about contemporary/recent research. Eran Elhaik is one who did support a version on it, but that the article says "most contemporay geneticists dismiss it" (not literally all of them). The Behar study (authored/co-authored by many including prominant often-cited geneticists in the field includin Behar himself) explicitly rejected it (along with other studies). It is not unjustified nor original research to say that most (not necessarily all, but most) contemporary geneticists reject it (two important words here are "contemporary" and "geneticist").Skllagyook (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, but even that, It is not allowed to add content that is not explicitly mentioned by the source, that what clearly mentioned in this policy WP:OR. --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the majority or geneticists that have published on the topic do not support the theory and that is is a minority view among contemporary geneticists. It would be extremely misleading to remove that statement and would create the inaccurate impression that the Khazar hypothesis is currently mainstream among geneticists and has as much support (or nearly so) as other theories, which it does not. This would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. I understand that it may be too unclear/uncertain whether the majority of geneticists reject it because cannot know for sure what all geneticists believe (since many may have not published on the subject at all) but we do know what most who have published on the topic think based on the research that exists. Therefore we could rewrite the sentence to say either "the majority of contemporary geneticists who have published on the topic dismiss it" or alternately as "the majority of contemporary genetic research dismisses it." I prefer the first, but both of these statements are clearly supported by the contemporary genetic research (most of which which clearly does not support the Khazar hypothesis). Both alternatives seem fine to me. Skllagyook (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your recent edit here [], the proposed edit was "the majority of contemporary geneticists who have published on the topic dismiss it" not "many contemporary geneticists who have published on the topic dismiss it" as you just wrote. Your version was not agreed on; it's too ambiguous and does not communicate that the Khazar hypothesis is a minority view. "the majority" (or "most that have published...") communicates this. Skllagyook (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So I prefer to remove it in order this controversy is over, it is anyway violate Wikipedia policy. --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained why my proposed edit does not violate Wikipedia policy and why it is important to communicate on the page that the Khazar hypothesis is a minority position in genetics scholarship (which is clearly and adequately supported by the sources). Removing that information would be highly misleading. I do not see the problem with "The majority of contemporary geneticists who have published on the topic dismiss it" That is clearly true. What is your objection, given what I explained above (and in my other recent replies)?Skllagyook (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)