Talk:Khazars/Archive 1

Dictionary of the Khazars
Mention should be made of Pavic's book Dictionary of the Khazars. 128.196.226.101 17:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is, in Khazars in fiction. --Briangotts 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dispute
Dear posters

The Khazars made just the Royal House like so often in the history, so you can not find a DNA proof in the jewish DNA because the people in the Khaazar Empire where not Khazars. The Khazars overtook the East Gothic Empire. They where a Germanic tribe comming from Sveden setteling on the Wistula and going eastwards a mixed Germanic- Slavic tribe with some Mongolic influence probably looking brownhaired and slim. When the Hungarians invaded middle Europe they came to Middle Europe and settlt on the borders of the Hungarian Empire as defenders. Their Language was a old germanic Language something like Middlehighgerman when they converted to Judaism they probably overtook Hebrew words and look what we have.(Jiddisch) In Austria exaktly on the Borders of the former hungarian Empire you habe citys like Judenburg ( Jewcastle ) Judenau and so on. The Boders of the Hungarien Emire where Austria to the West an Galicia ( Lviv) to the East.

niu qimis þu?( From Gothic page ) is gothig for do you come it is spoken nj kems thu in the Austrian Dialekt it is identical and the Austrian Dialekt is very close to Jiddish as  i have listen several times to Jiddish and could quite understand  a bit as the Austrian Dialekt has a lot of hebrew words from Yiddish.

Their you have your bloodline. Blood means blood not the name of a state witch commes from the kings famely. ( as you know the English are not Normanic even they where invaded by them) This knowlege comes from an Austrian- Hungarian nobel famely with partly jewish background.

Johann

Self referencing citation removed. The theoretical Khazar contribution to the bloodline of modern Ashkenazi Jews proposed by some is not generally accepted by historians.

More recent study of Y chromozone DNA 2003 that arrives at the opposite conclusion of the older previous citation and derived conclusion removed.

From User 128.196.226.101, that is Khazar fiction if I may say, that is not a fact. Please reply? You statting that "So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that the number was very high." has nor facts to supported. I urge you to read this article posted at the World Zionist Org. http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=140. It says the opposite:
 * (uhm just thought i should mention that i did try to follow the link above but that unfortunately i got this: "The site you requested (http://199.203.207.208/unknownSite.aspx) is unknown. Please contact the site administrator for help." right, so where's this administrator i should contact? :P IleanaCosanziana 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

"REMARKABLY, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace. Judaism is now known to have been more widespread among the Khazar inhabitants of the Khazar kingdom than was previously thought. In 1999, Russian archaeologists announced that they had successfully reconstructed a Khazarian vessel from the Don River region, revealing 4 inscriptions of the word "Israel" in Hebrew lettering. It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqih, in fact, wrote "All of the Khazars are Jews." Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that "all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety."

I believe this statement should be taken out!!!!


 * First of all, the "Khazars in fiction" comes in response to the comment about Pavic's book, which is fiction.
 * Second of all, both ibn al-Faqih and Christian's statements are referred to in the article. The statement that you object to states that there is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, that the Khazars formed a majority of Eastern European Jewry. That does NOT mean that most or all of the Khazars didn't convert to Judaism, which clearly they did. The evidence you raise does not go to the point you are trying to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is something wrong in the communication here. Please focus with me:

You are saying that : "So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim"

And I am asking for a source for this statement? Are you disputing my request for a proof? That is not right?

You are talking about a point I am making? that is a political question if I may say.

I am just ASKING for a source, and you provided an article? That is not an evidence!!!


 * If an article is not evidence, what is? -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AbuSous2000 Don't get me wrong, I value articles, but that is no fact. I can get you ten other articles (if not more) to say the opposite, but I am not writing about them since I have no conclusive proof. On the other hand, you are the person who wrote or defend such statement, and in that respect, you have to prove it.

By the way, most if not all of the DNA studies ignored (again ignored) including samples from Turkish, Tatar, Armenian, Abkhazi, ... peoples. The closest sample they took was for Kurdish Muslims & Jews, and the scientific numbers say that they are much closer to Kurdish people than to Arabs or Semitic people. I know this to be political, but I urge you to focus on the data. I wish if we can have an exhaustive and non-political DNA study.

FYI, I asked my friend Rabbi about the Khazar people: He told me we do not like to talk about them? I always wondered, WHY? An Israeli Journalist was on NPR one time and hinted for an answer: He said Khazari people are known as the red Jews who converted to for economical reasons so they can trade easily between Christians and Muslims. I cannot find him as a source so I cannot write yet, I need evidence. With all due respect, that is why I have been asking you to site the source, by the way, I could have deleted, but out of respect to the writers, I did not.I wish I have him as a source. You need to admit that most Jews do not like to talk about this subject, no wonder most schools do not fund such a study.

Although this article is work in progress, I am gaining more knoweledge about the Khazar people every day. I wish they can be given more credit than this.User:AbuSous2000


 * Several things:
 * First, an article in the New York Times citing a genetic study is considered a valid source under Wikipedia policies. If you can cite an article in a reputable publication, that cites a genetic study that contradicts the one referenced, you are free to do so. You cannot, however, continually put "fact" tags around facts that you do not like.
 * The discomfort that some Jews have talking about the Khazars comes from the fact that anti-Semites hype the purported descent of all Jews from Khazars to artificially separate the Jewish people from their cultural heritage and political rights.
 * The Israeli journalist you are referring to was probably Ehud Ya'ari. I suspect, however, that you may have misunderstood what he said. The Red Jews were a legendary group referred to in apocalyptic medieval German literature. See Gow, Andrew Colin. The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600. Brill, 1994. Some scholars, such as D.M. Dunlop, wondered if there was a connection with the Khazars; there is, however, no conclusive connection between the Khazars and the legendary Red Jews.
 * The group that could trade easily between Christians and Muslims was likely the Radhanites who may have influence the Khazars to convert, but there were many other factors involved in the conversion, including political (desire to unify the kingdom under one state religion and deal equally with the monotheistic empires) religious (sincere devotion should not be discounted), see Sefer ha-Qabbalah et al, etc. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AbuSous2000How about this, and let us make the discussion short: you are saying it is a fact, and you are not citing the source? why do not you cite the source so others can judge? Put a hard link to the NY Times article, not fiction articles!!!!!

Now regarding your opinion, it seems to me you are NOT letting the facts drive, Your writings seems to be political motivated, as if you are defending something other than facts!!!

I urge you to let the FACT bet the target of your defense, not your "history" the way you like it to be!!! This a forum where facts ONLY should be cited, right?

By the way, if Jews are Semitic or not Semitic as a facts that does not imply the fact itself anti-Semitic? Racist people will discriminate against Jews regardless if they are Semitic or non-Semitic. I know many Jews who converted from other religion, and still they are the victims of anti-Semitism. What I am trying to say, what you have written may or may not be a fact. Cite the fact if you have it!!!!

FYI, Have you heard of the study that says at least most of European Jewish women where native, not Semitic? What can you say about that?


 * AbuSous2000, these are basic issues already covered in WP articles and serious literature. Please educate yourself before exposing your ignorance or POV and review WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V. In the future, please restrict you activity in Talk pages to discuss/improve the article at hand. Also see WP:SIG. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AbuSous2000Are you saying I am ignorant because I am asking you to cite the source?

Why are you so defensive about the source? Since I am ignorant, why not educating me instead of name calling? Why do not you be a ←Humus sapiens as you said and cite the source?

Or may be I am on to something big? Like suppressing and masking the truth? I am not ganna lower myself to name calling. We the readers need your sources to be cited? The full article Please!!!


 * It is OK to ask for sources. Here you are making allegations and veer away from the topic. I see that you have not even followed the links I provided. Some of your concerns are addressed at Anti-Semitism. I see that User:Briangotts provided some sources that seem reputable to me. What sources do you use as base for your claims? I am asking because they seem loaded. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AbuSous2000 Based on what I have seen so far, there is no SIMPLE reply to the what I am writing. I guess some or all people on this page are political motivate. I am NOT making claim. This page states the following: "So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim."

What is WRONG in asking you to state or to cite the source(s) for this statement?

What is going on in my request?

I guess it is anti-Semitic to ask you to cite your source?

When you are corrnered and you back to the wall, you use such charges.

Stick to the fact & backup what you claim guys, then put it up, or delete it.

If this none-sense continnues I will find ways to take it out. I am trying to be civilized and asking you kindly to cite your sources. Is that a crime??? If you have source, juts add them? Let others go through to verify them.


 * Stop this tantrum. The ref is provided. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

...
How many of today's Jews are actually descended from the Khazars? -- SJK


 * I am not sure if anyone knows. I do know that there were some interesting biological tests done which showed that there has been much less intermarriage and conversion than anyone had previously imagined. Some scientists compared some biological traits that were markers for certain genes, specifically the fingerprint whorls, and found that most of today's modern day Jews matched the patterns for biological descendents of middle-eastern semites. There is an article on this (explaining the test, and logic of the arguement) entitled "Who are the Jews" by Jared Diamon, in "Natural History", volume 102, No. 11, Nov. 1993. RK

If Khazars really converted to Judaism and took the apellation, "Son of Abraham," then they really were Jews -- and their descendents really are Jews. I am sure that in the long history of the Children of Israel, many many people have been adopted into the family -- and it would be wrong, both morally and legally, to consider them any less members of the family.


 * [ Sorry if this is an innapropriate way to comment, but the above comment is rude. Stating that not accepting Khazars into the Jewish community is     morally and legally wrong, is morally and legally wrong to those Jews who believe that rabbinical Judaism has no right to try to own the definition of the  word.  This seems horribly POV.] Oemb1905 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is kind of you to be so concerned that everyone be polite/respectful, but it didn't seem rude to me, & certainly not anti-Jewish/Judaism, since s/he started out with "If Khazaras really converted..." If anything, the poster was upholding the right of Jews to determine who is a Jew. This is, in fact, the standard answer I give to Usenet trolls who try to trot out this discredited theory as a way of pretending that Jews aren't Jews, etc.FlaviaR (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some scientific merit to asking hat percentage of Jewish ancesors today came from where. But as far as "Jewish" concerns, it doesn't matter whether a small or high percentage come from the land of the Khazars or elsewhere. As long as the mothers were Jewish, or they converted, they are all Jews.

The notion of some pure bloodline smacks of racialist thinking, and may even be racist. But even were it benign, I just do not think it makes sense in the context of Jewish beliefs about being Jewish.

An admitedly very hypothetical example will illustrate my point. My family could have a practice of marrying only non-Jewish men. My father, three of my grandparents, seven of my greatgrandparents, and so on could all be non-Jews. I would have a very low percentage of "Jewish blood." But by the law of my people I would be 100% Jewish. SR


 * Genetically, it is now known that between 70 and 80 percent of paternal Ashkenazi lineages are from the Middle East, and that these lineages are related to Palestinian Arabs, Kurds, Anatolian Turks, Armenians, Syrians, and Lebanese. This leaves only about 25 percent of lineages which come from other sources (like Slavic and Khazar). The Eu 19 chromosomes are among the markers for a East-European as opposed to Israelite paternal lineage, and it is found among about 13 percent of Ashkenazi Jewish men.  See the study by the Israeli scientist Ariella Oppenheim and her colleagues, "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001): 1095-1112.  In maternal lineages the Slavic and/or Khazar components may be more significant than in the paternal lineages. Alexander Beider's book "A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names" (2001) goes into a lot of detail about the Slavic-speaking Jews who lived in the Lithuanian Grand Duchy before the Yiddish-speaking Jews merged with them.  They had East Slavic names like Kasper, Bogdan, Bogdana, Golosh, Ryzhko, Samodelka, Il'ya, and Domanya.  Beider concluded that while we can't tell for sure, some of these East Slavic Jews could have been part-Khazar.  But he also presents evidence that the Slavic Jews were numerically inferior to the Yiddish Jews.  So historical and genetic evidence coincide. -- KAB

The foregoing comment contains a serious misinterpretation of the literature it cites. Neither the authors of the cited study, nor any other responsible geneticist, has claimed an unambiguous identification of the geneticc ancestry of the Ashkenazim. There are conflicting reports in the scientific literature, which should serve as a warning to any skeptical person. Ruling out the Khazars as an ancestral population (or at any rate one of them) would requires detailed studies with populations that may be descended from or related to the Khazars - these have not been done.

The above interesting quote does not make it clear that the same genetic fact may be said for almost anyone with European ancestry since it has been proven Europeans have a near-eastern genetic origin. This is besides the only really interesting relevant results ironically being for male lines which are not recognised by predominant "Jewish" law as valid lines of descent. Maybe Khazars are in part perhaps a bit of red-herring but the Avar case seems -much to the disappointment of a few Hungarian nationalists- to hold some answers User:Zestauferov

"Genetically, it is now known that between 70 and 80 percent of paternal Ashkenazi lineages are from the Middle East". I have seen this claim before but have never seen any study or research sited. It is probably too emotionally charged for anyone to do a real, independent study. However, the most likely descendants of the ancient Hebrews are the Jews of North Africa, Persia, Athens, and Rome. Those are the places that had large diaspora populations of Hebrews even before the destruction of the Temple. The Ashkenazic Jews might not be the least likely, but they are certainly not the most likely. GuyInCT 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

no russians
in 10th century there were no Russians. Rusins. Not Russians.


 * Were Ruthenes subject to the Varangian Russ?

Khazars'descent
You quote two books: 1) The thirteenth tribe by Arthur Koestler 2) The Jews of Khazaria by Kevin Alan Brook Both are quite interesting but to make it short: A. Koestler tries to demonstrate that in the present day askhenaz communities, the Khazar influence is predominant with no interferences from western european Jewish communities who were nearly extinct at the time and just could not initiate any mass migration to eastern europe. K.A. Brook, on the other hand, does not try any demonstration but only states in just a few lines that the present days Askhenaz Jews may, to some extent, have some Khazars ancestors but that this ascendancy was greatly influenced by migrants coming from western europ. Why not? I know that the subject is so sensitive that it is nearly a taboo, but, nevertheless when you try to find out hard facts about populations history (with no interests in the present days political implications)this is far from satisfactory. After all you being an encyclopedia should you not try to sort the problem out and help your visitors?

I am reverting Mikkalai's last deletion. It is always better to rephrase something which doesn't seem right rather than to completely censor the opinon just because it doesn't fit with our own. No hard feelings Mikkalai, but how can NPOV be achieved if people keep ommitting the POVs they don't like? Skillful editing involves taking two conflicting POVs and making them fit well together in the same article. Simply deleting them is the quick & easy way out.Zestauferov 05:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia is about facts, not POVs. One cannot put into 'pedia every opinion on every subject. Go ahead, write an article in a magazine, with proofs and references, not just wild guesses. You may go ahead with obscure habiru, eberites, ets., but leave cossacks out of your wordplays, about which you seem to know much less. Mikkalai 05:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too Mikkalai. Check the history, I had nothing to do with the cossack thing. In fact I consider it personally to be erroneous, however, just because I have never come accross that argument and it seems totally wrong according to what I know, it does not make me a master of the Khazar question and I am not in a position to correct it. I suspect neither are you. The best thing to do is make a request next to the suspect info for references. If you do not replace it in such a way I am sure someone else will. All the best Zestauferov 05:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right. My fault.

The following section is removed from the body.


 * --Linguistics--


 * The word 'Khazar' is theorised to be the root of several other words, including cossack, hussar and 'ketzer' (an derogatory German term for a heretic), although the latter is more probably derived from the medieval Cathari gnostics. Some theories also consider Khazars to be ancestors of Terek cossacks.

First, it doesn't correspond to its title, second, it is not good to put each and every marginal theory in 'pedia, especially without refernces. It could be of encyclopedic value to know that such and such luminary thought this and that, but, I can think of quite a few "some theories" myself, basing on supereficial similarity of words only, without any historical traces of usage. Mikkalai 15:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, right here on by bookshelf sits a pretty serious article that endeavors to prove that Ilya Muromets was in fact a Jew (i.e., of Khazar descent). Very interesting, isn't it? But I have no desire to put it into wikipedia.Mikkalai 15:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe
Dear friends, maybe you know already that there is an online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe available. Regards Gangleri 11:38, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
 * It appears that that site may contravene copyright laws; perhaps it's best to avoid it. Jayjg 05:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, we don't want to remove the book from the references section, as someone has just done. Whether or not one agrees with its conclusions, Koestler's book is one of only a handful of books on the Khazars available in English. Hence it should be listed here. Isomorphic 20:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue I raised was aiding and abetting copyright violation, not the books contents or conclusions. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. I wasn't really responding to you, but to an edit made to the article by someone else. He made a bunch of edits at once, including removing Koestler's book from the References section. Sorry I wasn't clear. Isomorphic 21:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Koestler's book was totally unscientific, and is not a valid source to cite. Its "theories", such as they are, have long since been disproven by genetic testing. His historical sections were plaigarized wholesale from Dunlop, whose work is cited here. --Briangotts 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Briangotts, you are wrong when you say that "Its 'theories', such as they are, have long since been disproven by genetic testing." You have over-(and mis-)interpreted the scientific literature, which has reached no firm conclusions on the subject. The Khazar source populations have not been included in the genetic studies, so we have no idea how they might be related to Middle Easten groups, Ashkenazim, or others. When you cite scieentific literature you should take care to do so without interpreting it yourself or selectively quoting.

Merge/redistribute
Incidentally, while some people are paying attention to this article I'd like to point out the Khazaria article. I'm not sure how material should be distributed between Khazars and Khazaria, but the two should be a bit better integrated, or maybe even merged. Isomorphic 21:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that maybe the information on rulers should go into the Khazaria article. There's a lot there, and it's a ibt overwhelming where it is, but Khazaria is a shorter article and it might help flesh it out. Isomorphic 21:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea at all. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thought, now I'm thinking we should wait until Briangott finishes completely re-writing this article, and then re-visit the question. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have merged the articles in question. Thanks for bringing the Khazaria article to my attention. --Briangotts 03:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whither the Khazarische Jüden?
I'm going to be so bold as to propose something that is not only "New Research" but also not even mildly NPOV. I think the vast majority of Ashkenazim are of western European extraction, and that a very small minority of their number, especially prominent among the Litvaks, are descendants of the Khazarim. I also happen to believe that the fullest legitimate modern expression of Khazar Judaism is found, not among the Mizrachim of the Kurdish villages, but among the Tats and Gruzim of Azerbaijan and Kartveli Georgia. Another group (and this will perhaps draw criticism and create controversy) that I feel are closely connected with the Khazarim, are the Qara'im. Not only is their rise to prominence co-chronological with the conversion of the Khazarim, but their greatest descendancy is found among the Karaim of the Krimea and Lithuania. I think the historical rôle of the Khazars in Judaism, by Jews has been greatly underestimated, while its rôle by antisemites has been greatly overestimated, in completely different realms... TShilo12 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on some points, but as long as this new research is not backed by an authoritative source, we should keep it to the Talk page.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We are concerned here with facts, not beliefs. The claims that Mountain Jews, Georgian Jews, and/or Karaites are descended from Khazars have to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as when this claim is applied to Ashkenazi Jews. So far the DNA evidence does not support the claim with regard to Mountain Jews, while to my knowledge no data has yet been released on the DNA of Crimean Karaites and Lithuanian Karaites, and Georgian Jews have DNA that apparently matches non-Jewish peoples of Georgia and environs. There is no reason to believe that Mountain Jews have any more, or any less, Khazar ancestry than Ashkenazi Jews. The Karaites' settlement in eastern Europe is not co-chronological with the era of the Khazar empire; Karaites first appear in historical sources geographically within eastern Europe only after Khazaria fell; the Karaite movement developed in the Middle East during Khazar times. -KAB


 * The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG) has just published an extensive article that examines the last two decades of population genetics research related to Jewish populations. The author makes a rather compelling argument that there is a notable amount of genetic admixture that may be attributed to Khazar populations merging with Eastern European Ashkenazim. Recent studies examining a Khazar connection to Levite Jews are particularly interesting. [Here is the link.] Acarvin&larr;Talk 23:39, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

interwikiconflict

 * Please see Template:Interwikiconflict#ru:&#1061;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1088;&#1099; and ru:&#1061;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1082;&#1072;&#1075;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090; about ru:& and ru:&. Thanks in advance! Best regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 09:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Foreign-language article links
How come they don't appear at the end of the article? Is there a way to make them appear?
 * They aren't supposed to appear at the bottom. Interlanguage links have their own behavior.  I use a non-default Wikipedia skin where they appear at the top of the screen.  I think the default skin has them appear on the left sidebar. Isomorphic 21:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, where they are placed in the article's source code doesn't affect where they display. It's just Wikipedia convention to put them at the bottom to make them easy to find. Isomorphic 21:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proper adjective
is "khazaric" the correct adjective to use in association with the khazars?Gringo300 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I've read (which is actually pretty extensive), the four adjectival forms I've encountered are, in order of frequency, "Khazar", "Khazarian", "Khazari" and "Khazaric". The selection of which of these four as the "correct adjective" seems to be the preference of the individual author.  Without actually polling the popularity of each of these adjectival forms, I'd say "Khazar" comprises about 60%, "Khazarian" about 25%, "Khazari" about 12% and "Khazaric" about 3%.  As a cursory study of Google hits will demonstrate, "Khazaric" is a relatively rare form, and I'm guessing that it's likely that a study of the literature using that form will demonstrate a consistent viewpoint among its authors.  Tomer TALK  08:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Most scholarly sources use "Khazar" as both a nown and an adjective. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about the other options. --Briangotts 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also links
I removed a couple links from the "See also" section. That section is mostly intended to link related articles that aren't already linked elsewhere in the article. Some of the links there had originally been unique, but were now duplicated elsewhere due to the major expansion of this article (thanks Brian!) Isomorphic 19:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That totally slipped my mind. --Briangotts 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro
I just rewrote the intro in an attempt to answer the "so what" question quickly and succinctly. If in doing so I've introduced any inaccuracy, please correct it. Isomorphic 03:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khazar origin
Um, yes, there is controversy. Certainly some anti-Jewish groups use Khazar descent as a propaganda tool, but that doesn't mean it's false. While the Khazars do not make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline as was once claimed, it is near certain that at least a few Khazars went to Europe. There's no historical record of genocide, and they didn't just vanish into thin air, so lots of Khazars went somewhere. The question is to what extent the Khazars mixed with the rest of the Jewish community. Isomorphic 05:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how many. They do not make a substantial part of Ashkenazic Jewry and they are now a part of the Jewish people. If they do not make a majority, there should be no "controversy". It deserves a mention that they are a part of the Jewish nation and Ashkanazic Jewry, but it doesnt deserve the controversy title.

Guy Montag 06:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that there is major controversy among scholars; rather, that there is a lot of politics and strong feelings around the issue.  After all, you just finished calling the whole thing a myth propagated by neo-nazis.  I wouldn't really call Arthur Koestler a neo-nazi, considering that he was Jewish and actually thought (for some reason) that if he could show that Ashkhenazi Jews were not actually Hebrews, it would reduce antisemitism. Isomorphic 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I hope you didnt take my edits as an attack on you. What I should have wrote is that neo nazis have hijacked this claim for themselves as an argument to cast doubt on Jewish claims to Israel by saying that the Jews who are there are not the descendants of the "real Jews" who vanished or as they like to claim, are White Anglo Saxons, or some other rubbish. Along with that there is an entire theological basis for who is Jewish which has little to do with genetics and more to do with the Jewish way of life. I hope you accept the modification to the claim.

Guy Montag 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack. I'm still not completely satisfied;  I want it to mention the politicized nature of the issue.  I'll try another edit. Feel free to edit what I write. Isomorphic 19:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not trying to endorse anything. I just think that the intro should mention the political aspects of the issue, since that's the context in which most people might see it.  People rarely care about the finer points of the history of dead civilizations unless they're trying to use them for politics of one sort or another. Isomorphic 20:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that your additions are satisfactory. Do you happen to know among whom there is a heated discussion? The reason I ask is, that if it is only among fringe types it should be mentioned, if not, it is fine as it is.

Guy Montag 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Arthur Koestler's book was widely read, and is still one of only three books on the Khazars in my college library. So the Khazar-origin theory quite is well-known.  Is that what you meant? Isomorphic 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do mainstream professors hold his theories as legitimate or do only fringe types? i think this is a better way to phrase the question.

Guy Montag 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Guy is pointing out that the only people who push Koestler's theory are non-scientists with an agenda. Which, now that I think of it, applies perfectly to Koestler himself. Jayjg (talk)  21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going for. Thanks Jayjg.

Guy Montag 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody mainstream thinks that the Khazars make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline. However, there is serious support for the Khazars being a non-trivial minority.  Kevin Alan Brook believes this, for example. Isomorphic 21:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True enough, at least on the male side. The problem is it's really hard to figure out what percentage that "non-trivial minority" actually is, as we don't have any examples of Khazar DNA. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup. I was just clarifying that the issue isn't completely closed, that it's not just a fringe theory, and that it's appropriate to mention it.  Even Koestler's theory wasn't ridiculous when he proposed it, it just doesn't appear to be true given modern research. Isomorphic 22:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Koestler's book wasn't serious work. He had an agenda, and he mostly plagiarized actual historians. Jayjg (talk)  22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Never said his book was good. Just that the theory, at the time, wasn't ridiculous. Anyway, this is veering into side discussion.  I think nobody objects to the current wording. Isomorphic 22:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I dont object. I was further inquiring to see if any more additions are necessary. It seems that we came to the conclusion that they are not.

Guy Montag 05:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is there is no evidence that Jews made up a majority of the Khazars, in fact there is no real evidence they even made up a significant portion of the population beyond a few upper nobility. The only reason they converted in the first place was because Jews were seen as the lesser evil to both Muslims and Christians.  Furthermore the genetic test was more conclusive that this article suggests, if it was possible that Khazars made up any more of a part of the modern population than any other local women then the mitochondrial DNA of the the matrinealial line wouldn't have been so jumbled.  So unless there are a sections devoted to a possible minute Hungarian, French, German, etc. etc. contributions to modern Ashkenazi Jewish DNA it doesn't make very much sense to have one in this article unless it is only here to refute the theory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting question
Is there a way to put an image next to the TOC, under the History of Russia box, to fill in that blank space? I think it would look better. I have a couple images I'd like to add. --Briangotts 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I usually just play with this stuff.  Sometimes it even works. :-) Jayjg (talk)  22:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I took a minute or so and played around with it.  Check out this diff .  You'll notice the image appears under the template, which still leaves a bit of space, but at least it's not that huge gaping wound.  Don't use that image, obviously, as it fits in much better down further in the text, from whence I ripped the wikiformatting for it. :-p  Tomer TALK  00:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! I will find something appropriate when I have a chance. --Briangotts 14:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How's that? --Briangotts 13:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks a bit smallish, but it's probably good--I have my monitor set on pretty high resolution. Good work.  Tomer TALK  15:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Break up article?
I hate even to suggest it, because I like the way this article is organized, but should we think about splitting it up? It is now 41 KB in length, and the suggested maximum on Wikipedia is 32. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)
 * It's not a hard and fast rule, though it's a generally good ieda; if there's a particularly large sub-section that could logically be removed, then you could hive it off. I'd work on footnotes first if I were you. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder...I'm all for splitting up big articles, but how would you propose to split this one up? None of the sections seem particularly large enough to consititute articles of their own, and splitting off "History of the Khazars" as a set of sections seems almost oxymoronic, since the Khazars are, essentially, only History... :-p  For now, while the file length seems from the strict constructionist's standpoint to be a WP style problem, I don't think that the article itself warrants splitting.  Tomer TALK  June 29, 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Which map is better
the one used in the article or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Chasaren.jpg ? 02:49, 14 August 2005 172.177.50.53


 * The one used currently shows some polities not shown on the German map, though the German one is MUCH nicer on the eyes. What is the source of the German map? I'm also not sure about the propriety of putting a German map on an English Wikipedia article. I have added a link to the map though and am interested to see what others think. --Briangotts (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would make sense to edit it and translate the terms, if anyone is up to it. Or find the source, and ask them to.  It's a nice map. Jayjg (talk)  23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Having a look on the german history of the article will show the source. The image was drawn by a german wikipedian. Formerly we used a much worse map, based on english material, which was translated step by step when drawing the first sketch of the map. If I were you, of course I would translate the tribes from german to english. 172.180.112.37 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (anonymous, since I havent got an english account, sorry)

Conflict
Self reference to substantiate the claim that Ashkenazi are not desendants of Khazara removed.

How do proponents of the Khazar theory answer this- No archeological evidence exists whatsoever linking the Khazars to Judaism-while vast stores of judaica are constantly discovered in western Europe no ritual object has ever been discovered in relation to the Khazars, no torah scroll or Prayer book has ever been found written by a Khazar. Although according to the theory Khazaria abounded with yeshivoth-there is not even one known Khazarian Rabbi or work of jewish law originating in Khazaria. The Khazar legend originated with Ibn-Shaprut of Spain-history records him as searching for a Jewish kingdom prior to "discovering" the Khazars.(much like a commited ufologist finally having an "encounter") His actual correspondence appears to be a forgery-King Josephs replies seem to be more the work of a spanish Rabbi-than a central asian king. It is suggested that Ibn Shapruth was fearful of Spanish anti-semitism and created the Khazars to frighten opponents of the Jews. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi's work is clearly fictional. beyond these source little else exists to support the theory other than a couple of vague comments by travellers regarding "jews beyongd the mountains". The theory resurfaced in 19th Europe-yet its few proponents were politically motivated-and since then the theory has only attracted anti-semites. So how are my changes vandalism-Overwhelming evidence???? no evidence exists that jewish khazars existed.


 * You are quite mistaken. Saadya Gaon, who lived in the generation before Hisdai, referred to the Jewishness of the Khazars, as did numerous Karaite authors. Abraham ibn Daud wrote of meeting Khazar yeshiva students in 12th century Toledo.
 * Nobody has suggested that the Kuzari is to be taken as a non-fiction account.
 * Scores of contemporary Arab writers, including al-Masudi and ibn Fadlan, also report Jewish Khazars. Likewise Byzantine sources such as Constantine VII, St. Cyril, and Christian of Stavelot, all of whom lived either contemporaneously or before Hisdai ibn Shaprut. Early Russian sources likewise refer to the Khazars as Jews.
 * The Kievian Letter is written by Jews, some of whom have Turkic names, and signed by a Khazar official in Turkic runiform script. The Schechter Text is written by a Jewish Khazar. The Madngellis Document refers to the Jewish Khazar ruler David.
 * The suggestion that ibn shaprut invented the Khazars to "frighten" his opponents is one I have never heard. Please cite a scholarly work which states so. I suspect none exists.
 * Khazar burial practices shifted from pagan to Jewish-style burials in the early 9th century. Bricks from Sarkel featured stars of David and menorahs.
 * How many eleven hundred year old Torah scrolls, tallits, tefillins, etc. have survived to the modern day from any region in the world? By your logic there is no proof for the existence of Jews on most of the Earth through most of history.
 * While I have seen much debate over the timing and extent of the Conversion, you are the first person I have ever run into to outright deny it ever happened. This is original research (in the flimsiest sense of the word). --Briangotts (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What I will say, is that the Khazar myth has simply blossomed "yesh m-ayin". Only a few Arab writers mention Jewish Khazars-and many of these references don't directly refer to\Khazars, but might refer to Khazars. Bear in mind there are medieval references that support all\sorts of things-two-headed men dragons etc. There are more references to Israelites in the Americas. The Kievan letter in no way proves the existance of Jewish Khazars. As for burials-sheer nonsense, and really dishonest research. Boodies found, assumed to be Khazars, and then extrapolate they must be Jewish since the pagan practice of burying posessions isnt evident!!!!! So any body found without treasure anywhere is a jew. No actual Jewish symbols were found-why????? Many thousand Jewish artifacts remain over a thousand years old. And why no famous Khazar Rabbis???????????or responsa????? If the King in ibn Shapruts correspondence was as erudite(and fluent in Hebrew) as he appeared to be why isnt he a quoted Halachic figure???-why isnt he a Jewish hero?????this is impossible!remember Akiva was convert. Saadya Gaon was relying on Ibn Shaprut-this is common, Rabbis relying on the word of other Rabbis-The Gemarah is full of it. I could quote pages of absurd and untrue statements by Rishonim Ahronim etc. And why no substantial communication with other communities or even individuals after the Ibn Shaprut correspondence. Surely more mention would have existed if the story was true. Most of all Ibn Shaprut was looking for a existant Jewish kingdom prior to "finding" the Khazars. The story was taken as a fairytale until a few Maskilim promoted the Idea in the late nineteenth century-like Ibn Shaprut they were trying to counter anti-semitism-as was Koestler. The reality is the primary source evidence for this myth is almost non-existant-more proof exists linking the British Royal family to Congoid pygmies-I think that the Wikipedia entry is misleading in presenting the Khazar myth as fact-read Ibn Shaprut with an open mind-no such king ever existed-and not enough positive evidence exists to suggest that he did! That is the funny thing with the Khazar theory, the question of whether Ashkenazim are of Khazar descent is debated-the obvious reality that the Jewish Khazars never existed is overlooked. I feel the entry should offer this perspective, Jews leave very large footprints wherever they go-due to the literate nature of Jeiwsh society-these "remarkable" jews vanished leaving a few hexagons and very vague quotes by travellers. Even id Ashkenazim tried to conceal and destroy evidence of their "convert" yichus-they surely didnt travel to cnetral asia to scrub hebrew inscriptions off graves-and why dont "jewish Khazar graves" contain the hebrew lettering(that the king knew so well) and All Jewish graves of that era contained???? Were they trying to be low key?


 * Please explain how Saadya Gaon could rely upon Hisdai ibn Shaprut when he preceeded him by half a century. The rest of your argument is so disjointed, illogical, and full of straw men arguments that I am at a loss how to begin responding. --Briangotts (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Strawmen arguments-pointing out that no actual evidence exists suggesting that the Jewish Khazars were. That there is no memory of any Khazaric Rabbis, responsa, no found artifacts,no ritual objects, nothing. Strawmen arguments-doubting that a Jewish capital existed on an island in the middle of the volga. Suggesting that a Jewish leader who constantly was forced to debate Catholic clerics, who alleged that the Jews were rejected by God since they had no Kingdom-might have had a motive for making the whole thing up. Strawmen arguments-pointing out that little else exists but ibn-shapruts writings. No prizes for guessing the original letters of the king were lost. You are the one asserting the absurd and denying the obvious-a theory with so little evidence that it is hard to argue against it-like convincing a madman that there isnt a pink elephant hovering above his head. I think the entry should include these points.


 * Can you please provide a source for your novel theory that the Jewish Khazars never existed? Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is there arent many sources suggesting they did. What source do you want? like saying provide a source that UFO's never existed. Actually numerous jewish scholars doubt they existed-one was Isaiah Berlin.


 * Can you quote him please? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Isaiah Berlin is a political philosopher, not an archaeologist or a historian. Even if it's true that he said so, whether the Khazars existed or not is as far outside his area of competence as international relations is outside Noam Chomsky's. --Briangotts (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you argue that there were no Jews in 6th century Yemen, and that the evidence of Jewish kings in Himyar is a complete fabrication, simply because they are not "Jewish heros" (by your conception) and they produced no great works of halakha until a much later period? --Briangotts (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also suppose that the vast Saadya Gaon-Hisdai ibn Shaprut-Yehuda halevi conspiracy had the scores (not "a few") of Muslim and Christian sources for the Jewishness of the Khazars as members? Amazing, so much ecumenical cooperation!--Briangotts (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You really want to believe this theory!! The Jews of Yemen exist today! If a distict Khazarian community, claiming outright to be descended from Khazars and speaking a Khazarian dialect and calling their sons Bulan-I would believe in jewish Khazars. And the Saadya Gaon/Ibn Shapruth "conspiracy" isnt exactly vast. And the "scores" of sources, when examined, arent exactly very convincing. For instance the famous "kievan letter" doesnt really mention jewish khazars-just possible Jews with Turkic names

In kevin brooks own words-n the early 10th century, the Khazarian Jews of Kiev wrote a Hebrew-language letter of recommendation on behalf of one of the members of their community, whose name was Yaakov bar Hanukkah. The letter is known as the Kievan Letter and was discovered in 1962 by Norman Golb of the University of Chicago. The names of the Kievan Jews are of Turkic, Slavic, and Hebrew origins, such as Hanukkah, Yehudah, Gostata, and Kiabar. Scholars disagree as to whether these Jews were Israelites who had merely adopted local names, or whether their local names were a sign of their Turkic Khazarian origin

In other words the Kievan letter proves nothing along with all the other quotes(on close inspection. So what, Jews with turkish names-so Jews with names Harold or Irving are Norman or Celt(or whatever)???? The name Hanukah is popular amongst mountain jews. Another hint at the non-truth of the Khazar Bobe mayse is its startling similarity to old talmudic "lost tribes over the River Sambatyon" stories, even in terms of location. Doesnt Ibn-shapruth say the capital was "sambat"? Bit suspicious

and the theory is further discredited-from the Sephardic sages website- "Hisdai's correspondence (written by Menahem ben Saruq) with a Jewish Khazar king, Joseph, is of historic importance. The Khazars, a Turkic people dwelling in southern Russia, had converted to Judaism in the middle of the 8th century AD. Hisdai's letter and the king's response led a shadowy existence until their unexpected publication in the 16th century CE. After much controversy, the authenticity of both letters and the accuracy of their information seem well established." So even the original source is second-hand and suspect. I might add that one indication of the level of "scholarship" on this topic is the fact that there is an actual "smoking gun" text,however, not one, not even one, of the proponents has discovered it, but believe me buried amidst mounds of old rabbinic literature is a beauty-a real "smoking gun" -personally I think it is another bobe mayse by a rabbi with a fertile imagination-but I aint telling you where or what it is-but believe me it is a beauty.


 * Ibn Shaprut never says that the capital was Sambat. The capital was Itil. You invented this detail along with the rest of your "theory", to which you cling despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You have yet to provide any solid evidence for your beliefs that make them appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * Cite a scholarly source that supports your beliefs, or write an article and have it published in a peer reviewed journal. Until then edits to the effect that the Khazars never converted to Judaism will be reverted. --Briangotts (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am planning to write an article disproving the Khazar theory and exposing the fraud-the fact that none of the "primary sources" really specifically mention the Jewish Khazars. Like I say, beneath mounds of obscure rabbinic literature exists what you would regard a smoking gun-that puts any of your sources to shame(including the Ibn Shaprut letters)-if you know so much why havent you found it-I gaurantee it is there.

So what IS the overwhelming evidence for the Jewish khazars-do tell? and I cant find the Saadia Gaon quote anywhere-does it exist?


 * I look forward to reading your article. --Briangotts (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to publish such an article. Elsewhere.  Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, so we recommend to you one of the many history or archaeology journals that do serve such a purpose. Isomorphic 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny that my suggestion that the Jewish Khazars didnt exist is regarded as "original"-the Khazars were always regarded as a fairytale and the Jewish scholars that "proved" they did in the 19th were commited members of the Haskalah(emancipation) (I might add I am not orthodox myself) and had very very clear-cut reasons to promote the idea-they felt that if they showed that Jewish traditon arent that ancient, jews would modernise. Ibn Shapruts letters are very very suspect-and if not a forgery in the first place-were a later forgery-remember they were "discovered" in the 16th century. Old Jewish encyclopedias were generally very much written by proponents of the emancipation. The extent to which the Emancipation movement hijacked and distorted Jewish History is actually incredible. It is time that intertested peoples start sifting through the actual evidence and facts and start re-writing Jewish history as it might have occured.


 * Can you quote sources who advance the same thesis you are proposing? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a productive discussion. Please cite scholars who agree with your interpretation, or take your thoughts to another forum.  There is no point trying to convince us of anything, since even if you succeeded, Wikipedia policy requires us to reflect external sources, not our own beliefs. Isomorphic 14:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There are more sources that agree with my viewopint that disagree with it. I will post them soon ..another bogus khazar quote-Rabbi Petachia-clearly refering to karaites. Notice the proponents of the KHazar theory never actually quote Rabbi petachia but make reference to it-

The text of the article doesn't even say that Rabbi Petachiah refers to the Judaism of the Khazars, only that he passed through their country (and mentioned it by name) two full centuries after they were crushed by the Rus and encountered people who lived in perpetual mourning (who may or may not have been Khazars and may or may not have been Karaites). The Petachiah quote excerpted here is about his report of Jewish kings in "Meshech". What you are doing (again) is setting up straw men. Khazaria.com has a wide array of quotes from independent sources, many of whom lived thousands of miles apart and never heard of one another, that refer to the Judaism of the Khazars. Write your article, get it published in a peer reviewed, reliable and scholarly source and then you can add whatever addendum you wish about your "alternative theory".--Briangotts (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As point of fact, the assertion that the Jewishness of the Khazars was regarded as a fairy tale until recent times is a total fabrication. Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, ibn Tibbon, and other Jewish scholars who discussed Halevy's Kuzari clearly regarded the Khazars as a historical people and their Jewishness as a historical fact. And the Khazars and their Jewishness have been mentioned in numerous historical works for centuries- including those by Graetz and Dubnow, who refer to earlier writers, and whose research probably included sources lost to us today. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Date crusade
Please do not bring the "date crusade" to this article, particularly with the claim that Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 requires either AD or the absence of CE. In fact, MOS states:
 * Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.

--Briangotts (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Link
If I understand correctly, Kevin Brook, operator of Khazaria.com and author of the excellent Jews of Khazaria, has removed a link to another interesting website claiming that it is a personal attack on his work (how can a criticism of one's scholarly work be "personal"?)

I have restored the link. I see nothing in the essay that is a personal attack. It is one person (who has done a considerable amount of research himself) commenting on information found in Khazaria.com and other sites. Indeed Finkelshteyn expresses admiration for Brook's accomplishments. I think the removal of this link is unwarranted and unbecoming a scholar. --208.211.44.22 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If a response has been posted, that should be linked as well. --Briangotts (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do wonder about the three links to Finkelshteyn's website and the two links to Brook's website. I would think one link to each website in the external links should be enough.Shsilver 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually would leave the link deleted, since a legitimate reason for removing the link, as mentioned by the person who removed it, is that it deals critically with something the remover's website used to say, not with what it says now. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is definitely a personal attack by Finkelshteyn who I believe has a vendetta against me. He targets me in that page, instead of the people who actually wrote those quotes and came up with those ideas. Additionally, he doesn't quote what I currently have at the page, and therefore portrays me in a bad light, as if I pass along bad research and never correct it or analyze it. That is not true. We learn new things each year. He took a few select quotes out of context and presents it as if it's my research methodology or as if I still believe these things are valid. Finkelshteyn has not read my book even 6 years after its publication and refuses to reference my book in his main bibliography on his site. He does not even refer to any of my later research from after 1999. He claims those few examples "are typical of how he approaches his sources", in an "extremely sloppy", ahistorical approach, with "fascile assumptions". Actually, I constantly update my knowledge and revise my conclusions based on this new knowledge and have reconsidered the views of certain archaeologists and historians which he had rightly questioned. In July 2005 I caught him using the phrase "sloppy English oversimplifiers" (there's that word sloppy again!) in the Khazar-Fiction discussion group to refer to what people's opinion supposedly is of both Koestler AND me, but in reality I feel he's referring to his own view, and certainly he can speak only for himself. He also uses the phrase "rosey-colored glasses" to refer to me, on his links webpage, i.e. pretending that I don't see things as they really are, but through a prism or bias of some sort. Years ago to public forums like newsgroups he attacked me by calling me a "fruit with some sort of agenda" and with "some sort of chip on his shoulder" (see his post of February 14, 1996 to rec.org.sca). All this shows his attitude towards me, that he would list a truly irresponsible work like Koestler's but not my book or articles. Mr. Silver has a good point about the lack of necessity for duplicate links to the same sites when there is straight-forward navigation on them. If you want to know my actual research methods and see some updated knowledge see my article "The Origins of East European Jews" in Russian History/Histoire Russe 30:1-2 (2003) or my forthcoming second edition and do not rely on my outdated book's first edition. I will continue to defend my reputation against those who claim I have a bias, an agenda, or an improper research methodology. - KAB 18 October 2005

Chernigov
The cite for Chernigov as a Khazar town is:


 * Pritsak, Omeljan. "The Pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in Relation to the Khazars, the Rus', and the Lithuanians". Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in HIstorical Perspective, ed. Howard Aster and Peter J. Potichnyj. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1990. p. 7.

Erasure
My edit of 12 November, 2005 came from New International Encyclopedia, which is a high-quality encyclopedia. Why was my edit destroyed? Superslum 18:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I re-added the bit about Cyril in a more appropriate spot. I think the other material was already covered elsewhere in the article. Isomorphic 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist Opinion
It is stated in this article that 'The Khazar theory has been adopted by many anti-Zionists, especially in the Arab world; such proponents of the theory argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar in origin, then they would be exempt from God's promise of Canaan to Israelites as recorded in the Bible, were one to ignore that the promise also applies to converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi.'

This is only part of a two-pronged argument, using the Khazar theory. The cited example uses the Khazar theory *in conjunction* with Religious Zionist Logic (i.e. that God promised Palestine to the Children of Israel) and is probably the least used part of the argument.

The part of the argument using the Khazar theory which is probably the most popular is designed to counter a fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago and therefore have some genetic claim to the land right now. In arguing that the majority of Ashkenazim (and thereby the majority of Israeli Jews) are not genetically related to Semitic Jews of ancient History, but to the Eastern Khazars, an attempt is made to discredit the racist Zionist argument.

It would be nice to see this page accurately reflect this anti-racist use rather than an attempt to counter the patently ridiculous religious justification.- Sign your name in the future


 * Give me a Break, the "fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago"?, take your rants elsewere. Are you trying to suggest that we never really lived in the land? Did you miss your David Duke meeting or something and decided to take your frustration out on us? And in the future sign your name after a comment, it makes it really confusing if you don't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your ad hominem attacks and quoting out of context are not particuarly helpful. He wasn't saying that the belief that they lived there was fundamentally racist, but rather that using that belief as an argument for Zionism was.  I would urge you to be more civil in your discourse. Generic69 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, dear Generic69, it is wrong to blame MCHS for being uncivil after the anon adopting a popular notion among anti-Semites "Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar" and repeating allegations of Zionism being racist, which was rescinded even by the unreformed UN. The applicable policy here is WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The applicable policy is the incivility of Mr. Al-Silverburg. If a user wants to express his opinion on a talk page in the context of making a suggestion about changes to the article that's well within his rights.  Generic69 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA means discussing the argument and not the person. While I agree that MCHS could have chosen a nicer language, the original post should not be overlooked. This is not only about "being nice". I someone uses/supports/spreads antisemitic allegations, I don't see a problem calling their arguments antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Added some indents to make clearer who posted what. Play nice, children :) PiCo 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * [I think we should test the bloodline of every Jewish person in the world. Let's notify the Bet Din, so we can solve all of this Bull S__t!" Oemb1905 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic - is really anti-Russian? Damn! The UN gave Israel to Russia - who would have thunk it. I bet the closest blood relatives to ancient Jews are probably the Palestinians - haven't we treated them good

hebrews and khazars
apparently, pure-blooded hebrews aren't khazars, and pure-blooded khazars aren't hebrews. however, logically hebrews and khazars could have interbred.

reportedly, before their conversion to judaism, the khazars didn't use the hebrew language. this makes me wonder: how familiar were they with the hebrew language before they actually adopted it as their language? and if they were familiar with it before they adopted it, for how long before were they familiar with it?

Gringo300 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Hebrew was "adopted" as the Khazar language. The only documents we have that were definitely written in Hebrew by Khazars are the King Joseph's Letter and the Schechter Letter, both of which were written to non-Khazar Jews in Spain. --Briangotts 04:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * obviously, archeology must be a very frustrating job. Gringo300 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that the Soviets purposely flooded the Khazar site that had the most intact artifacts, Sarkel, and that Atil too is supposedly underwater now, I imagine that Khazar archeology is even more frustrating than most other types... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Asimov quote
I removed "'If I could trace my origins to Judas Maccabaeus or King David, that would not add one inch to my stature. It may well be that many East European Jews are descended from Khazars, I may be one of them. Who knows? And who cares?' -Isaac Asimov". The quote is not cited. Where did Asimov make it, and in what context? If it's properly cited it might be appropriate to include it in a separate paragraph giving Asimov's view on the subject or lending Asimov's authority to the opinion that the alleged Khazar descent of Ashkenazim is irrelevant today. The quote should not stand alone, even if attributed. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if attributed, it doesn't belong here, but rather to Asimov's bio/vies/quotes if anywhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not add an inch to his stature but it certainly removes the argument for a right to Palestine.


 * Only if you assume that there was a time when there were no Jews at all living there, AND that all Jews are descended from the Khazars, AND that somebody else had a prior claim to unoccupied lands there. Cbdorsett 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AND if you insist you have a better right than Jews to decide who is/not a Jew, AND if you refuse the right of ONLY ONE country, out of all the countries in the world, to decide her own rules for citizenship. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "Palestine" to refer to Israel & not Jordan to accept that Israel has any of the normal rights of any other country.FlaviaR (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article
This is a very interesting article for several reasons, not least of which is the historical maps! Badagnani 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is really a great article.--Rob117 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Map of the World c. 820
I hate to nitpick a really good article, but the Map of the World c. 820 seems a wee bit fanciful. Tibet includes Burma in one vast empire? Sez 'oo? Nice to see the Thais get so much space, but I don't think it's quite right. I think the map is a valient attempt at the unattainable. PiCo 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Thais on the map. I don't think they had a kingdom at the time. The one on the map is the Khemer Empire, which was roughly that size. I don't know about Tibet, but it did reach to Bangledash. It is pretty close but could be moved a bit. 12.220.94.199 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The map is derived from the Cassell Atlas of World History, by John Haywood (Cassel, 1998). Sorry if it appears a "wee bit fanciful" to you, but with respect, Tibet's sphere of influence during this period did indeed extend south to the Bay of Bengal and included most of what is now northern Burma. And there are no Thai polities on the map. The one you are referring to is the Khmer Empire; the Thais did not arrive on the scene from Yunnan until roughly the 13th century. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish mtdna and y-dna inconsistency
The 2006 article cited in the front paragraph describing Jewish DNA patterns (http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf) seems to be inconsistent with what is written about Jewish DNA patterns in that paragraph ("Current genetic studies show that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from Middle Eastern populations whereas studies that take into account mtDNA show no relation to middle eastern ethnic groups."). If you read the article, you will find that the four females which the mtDNA trace back to are "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" (pg 7, though they are all marked as 000 for some reason). The abstract states that nearly half of Ashkenazi Jews, numbering about 8,000,000, can be traced back to these four females. This strand of mtDNA is virually absent in other population though it exists in low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews.

This seemingly false conclusion could have been drawn from this website, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html, the first one that comes up when searching for "Jewish Y-DNA" on google: "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally." However, in further review, the second website that comes up under this google seach, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html (interestingly, part of the same host site), quotes "Recent genetic studies, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe," an abstract from a bioanthro article at http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf.

From this evidence, can we conclude that evidence from both mtDNA and Y-DNA studies shows that at least half of all contemporary Ashkenazi Jews are decendants from Hebrew/Levantine peoples? Somebody with a better background in genetics might be able to help. Slubin 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you cannot conclude that, because there are other possible explanations for the data. As regards the Khazars, for example, they too might carry the markers found in the Middle East. There simply hasn't been enough testing done to warrant definitive conclusions. That is why the scientific literature can seem so confusing: if one simply accepts ad hoc or preliminary interpretations, there seems to be conflict, but if one realizes that these are merely interim conclusions, then you can see that this is just normal experimentation. One serious confounding factor in many interpretations is the assumption, based on non-genetic sources (and often nothing but tradition) that Ashkenazim are descended from the ancient Hebrews. It is easy to understand the assumption, but it has no place in a genetic study.

hapologroup Q links ashkenazi jews to khazars. (source: http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm) - anonymous user


 * True; DNA testing is still largely in its infancy, and it's important to note that these results are entirely TENTATIVE and in no way DEFINITIVE. --172.144.96.186 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Explicit promise to converts
I put a FactMe on this yesterday: "This ignores, of course, the fact that the Biblical promise explicitly includes converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi."

Someone addded in "(see Demographics of Israel, Jewish exodus from Arab lands)" which is fine but I was more curious over the 'biblical promise' aspect of the sentence. Does such an explicit promise to include converts to Judaism exist? --unsigned comment


 * See, e.g.:
 * Exodus xii. 48;
 * Deuteronomy xxiii. 8
 * Ruth ii. 11-12;
 * Isaiah ii. 2-4, xliv. 5;
 * Jeremiah iii. 17, iv. 2, xii. 16;
 * Zeph. iii. 9;
 * I Kings viii. 41-43;
 * The entire book of Ruth

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, heres the passages should it arise as an issue again. I was looking for the explicit promise mentioned but thanks for your help anyway.


 * Exodus xii. 48;
 * On Celebrating Passover"48 'An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. 49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.'"


 * Deuteronomy xxiii. 8
 * Exclusion From the Assembly [of the Lord]"7 'Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.'"


 * Ruth ii. 11-12;
 * Ruth Meets Boaz"11 Boaz replied, 'I've been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband—how you left your father and mother and your homeland and came to live with a people you did not know before. 12 May the LORD repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.'"


 * Isaiah ii. 2-4, xliv. 5;
 * The Mountain of the Lord"2 In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3 Many peoples will come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.' The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. 5 Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the LORD."


 * Isaiah xliv. 5
 * Israel the Chosen"5 One will say, 'I belong to the LORD '; another will call himself by the name of Jacob; still another will write on his hand, 'The LORD's,' and will take the name Israel."


 * Jeremiah iii. 17, iv. 2, xii. 16;


 * Jeremiah iii. 17"16 In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,' declares the LORD, 'men will no longer say, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. 17 At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. 18 In those days the house of Judah will join the house of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your forefathers as an inheritance."


 * Jeremiah iv. 2"1 'If you will return, O Israel, return to me,' declares the LORD. 'If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, 2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, 'As surely as the LORD lives,' then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.'"


 * Jeremiah xii. 16 God's Answer"14 This is what the LORD says: 'As for all my wicked neighbors who seize the inheritance I gave my people Israel, I will uproot them from their lands and I will uproot the house of Judah from among them. 15 But after I uproot them, I will again have compassion and will bring each of them back to his own inheritance and his own country. 16 And if they learn well the ways of my people and swear by my name, saying, 'As surely as the LORD lives'-even as they once taught my people to swear by Baal—then they will be established among my people. 17 But if any nation does not listen, I will completely uproot and destroy it,' declares the LORD."


 * Zephaniah iii. 9;
 * The Future of Jerusalem"9 'Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him shoulder to shoulder."


 * I Kings viii. 41-43;
 * Solomon's Prayer of Dedication"41 'As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name- 42 for men will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm—when he comes and prays toward this temple, 43 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name."


 * The entire book of Ruth
 * Ruth 1 Ruth 2Ruth 3Ruth 4[/b]

hee hee

Oemb1905 05:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Term Nations with (s) Plural in the Bible means Israelites…. nations=12 nations of Jacobs That is Because if you remember Jacob was promised to be [nation] and a [company of nations] Genesis 35:11. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him (Jacob), I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a[ company of nations shall be of thee], and kings shall come out of thy loins Genesis 35:11-12

וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי, פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה--גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם, יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ; וּמְלָכִים, מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ

crucially means that these nations in Jeremiah iii. 17, iv. 2, xii. 16;Isaiah ii. 2-4, xliv. 5 ,Zeph. iii. 9; were Israelites and Has NOTHING to do with Gentiles( NON-Israelites conversion)

The REST of verses you have paste has Nothinig to do with Conversion and that is beacuse the Isaainic Covenant GEN 17:19 Is is to Isaac alone. It is including Isaac and his Blood Line seeds alone .It is EVEN “Excluding”, Abraham and Ishmael whom they have covenant in GEN 17:9, ….Sarah and…. even (most of today Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews whom are 95% of world Jews .. whom obviously Proven NOT to Genetically blood descendants of Jacob and Isaac )… {and I will establish my covenant with[ him] for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his [SEED] after him. Gen17: 19}

hee hee hee

82.5.167.237 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion in "Conversion to Judaism and relations with world Jewry" section
I removed the following:

[i]The original Jewish settlers were joined by waves of immigration fleeing antisemitism|persecution in the Byzantine Empire, Sassanid Iran|Persia (particularly during the Mazdak revolts), and later within the Islamic world.[/i]

The reasons for the removal are:


 * (1) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in the Byzantine Empire. While there may have been times when this might have been the case, at this time, there is no source to confirm that info and;


 * (2) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in Persia. Again, while there might have been times of such events, at the time in question, there is no source to confirm said info and;


 * (3) There is nothing in Wikipedia regarding the "Mazdak revolts" and;


 * (4) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in the Islamic world. In fact, at this point in history up until the 20th century, Jews were close to their Semitic breathren, the Arabs, and rode forward with the Islamic expansion taking existing markets from those that would not convert and establishing themselves into new markets as well.


 * In fact, according to "A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times", by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1909), Persians in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr. Parkes's account: There is no doubt that the ... Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p. 81).


 * Further, according to "The Position of Jews in Arab lands following the rise of Islam" by Merlin Swartz, "Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies."


 * Lastly, according to Elliot B. Lefkovitz, Ph.D., Adjunct Prof. of History, Loyola Univ. and Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, ""After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church became the most powerful force in Europe. In the early Middle Ages, the Jews lived fairly peacefully with their Christian neighbors. Many Jews became merchants. Others practiced trades or owned land. Many Christians respected the Jews for their contributions to society."


 * Therefore, the deleted information is merely original research and violates the Verifiability requirement. As always, if someone can post references contesting the above information, please, as a courtesy, let me know and make the necessary change. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the lefkovitz point you make ... 1) The quote refers to European Jews, but you refer to near East or Byzantine, if you will, Jewish culture.  therefore it is invalid to assign this quote as defense for that (no waves of immigration) point.

Regarding the Jewish / Persian conquer of Jerusalem. There is no surprise, since the Persians were unique in accepting other cultures without constraint, that the two parties united to fight a common foe. But here, you are dealing with stuff that is on the cusp of the Arabic Empire at its greatest. Your are dealing with two sides uniting because they face an enemy who could possibly take them even united. Eventually, of course, we know that the Jewish prescence in Jerusalem was again destroyed as Jerusalem is the place where Mohammad ascends (? come on brain!), and the nascent Arabic empire claims Jerusalem as its own, and accordingly the few Jews have returned and left time and again since 135 CE, are allowed to stay under dhimmi status, and accordingly the Jerusalem Talmud is put into finished form around this time. we certainly know that the centers of Jweish learning in Causarea and Bagdhdad close around 1034 and 15??. Thus, this quote's period marks a sliver on what is a dynamically evolving fabric. To quote it, alone, as some sort of defense for there being little or no refugees from 135 on, as if it were some sort of permanent stroke, and not a mere fluke or historical flash in the pan, is, frankly, disingenuous.

There is plenty of information that Jews fled both the lack of proper citizenship in Christian Europe and the dhimmi status in Arabic Empire. Jewish hagaddah are ripe with them. The whole purpose of the synagogue, for example, is evidence of this. Evolving around the turn of the century, the synagogue replaced the temple of Jerusalem, which was no longer in Jewish hands, as the center of Jewish worship, for a given community. The Talmud, in fact, is largely comprised of the manner in which the holy rites of the year are changed by the location of your community outside of Israel. Others are for Israel specifically, and were thus rendered out of date, until later scribes interpreted them. In all the regions you discuss, synagogue culture abounded, and is an archaelogical testament to Jewish diaspora and migration practice. The Passover hagaddag is another example. In a certain sense, it resembles slave poetry or slave religion, in that it is a story of us escaping slavery throught the greatness of G_d. In another sense, it is historical narrative. Regardless, it is a living testament to the need of the Jewish people, abroad per se, to have living story and tradition through G_d in their lives.

Regarding the Jews supporting Arab armies in Spain area quote. We all know that Jews inconsistently supported Christians or Muslims, both in Spain itself to varying degrees under different dynasties and Jewish leadership, under different Christian treatement, etc. What bearing does the fact that Jews were aiding the Muslims in one area, mean that they were not suffering in another? And at any rate, how does it support the purpose of this topic, which was to deny mass migration and persecution. we are talking about decisions made by local rulers three empires away from the one you are dealing with in the topic, khazars per se.

Your statement, "::Therefore, the deleted information is merely original research and violates the Verifiability requirement." is entirely without factual content. In no way, did any one of your quotes even address the appropriate period, let alone resemble the problem of the quote you provided. The problem, that the quote had no backup and violated certain wiki ethics was valid, but to replace it with statements equally undefendable and provide four off-topic quotes is also equally invalid. Just swinging by and giving my two sense. Wish I had more time to edit my own statements. Take care ...

See: Triumph of Survival ... for some source amterial on this issue ... he wrote three others as well and he provides extensive bibliography for his own work ...

Oemb1905 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

who, really, are the khazars to begin with?
The question to me, seems to be, who, really, are the khazars to begin with? most of the sensitive ethnic debates on this issue, stem from post-kingdom questions about whether the Khazars were ethnically distinct and converted, or were actually Jews themselves, or both. we should however, try to research and expand the "relation to world Jewry" section since Jews were banned from Jerusalem in 135 CE and it is entirely likely that communities moved into these areas. certainly, they had to pass them on their way out of JErusalem and into Europe, in order to become what we now know as Ashkenazim. at any rate, it seems clear that much like the ancient hebrews came into Canaan and assimilated Canaanite culture into their own, but took over, so to the Jews who fled Jerusalem, met up with Jewish communities from antiquity, and perhaps their large presence had an effect much like that of the Hebrews on the land of Canaan.

Regarding the portion of genes that modern ashkenazim share with the khazars .... first of all, to some, if they converted, it does not matter. second, to some, many of the jews migrated through africa, france, and spain, and then after france kicked the jewsish people out in the 12th or 13th century and then spain and portugal in 1492, and 1512? ..., then the Jews migrated Northwards into Poland, which as the perrenial underdog European state, was happy to take many Jews at different times in its history. clearly, the anti-Jewish theory that Khazars, a distinct non-Jewish race, converted, and thus all Jews, are thereby non-Jewish, fails. however, it can, and has, been shown by many scholars that the Khazars were both inlfuenced by Jewish people, and inlfuenced Jewish culture.

the main rub: have we adequately addressed how much the second temple destruction might have contributed to the development of the turkic, khazaric, people in the first place? as in, before history all of a sudden records there being khazars ...


 * We should also keep an eye on converting to Judaism as happened in the Maghreb. Wandalstouring 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and to be clear, it was the Akkadians who kicked out the royal house of Israel in 73_ BC (?) (meaning the Northern Kingdom of the First Kingdom in this context), and the Akkadian Empire held parts of what we sometimes refer to as Khazari land ... Oemb1905 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Midrash Shem
An alternative opinion to that featured in the article regarding the name Khazar, derives it from the hebrew verb Chazar (Hebrew: חזר), meaning returned, a common way in hebrew to describe Jews who readmited Jewish religious obligations upon themselves.

Do you think that this opnion should be featured in the article and if yes, where? Tomer Ish Shalom 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, unless it can be referenced to a legitimate source. I have spent years researching the Khazars and I have never come across this explanation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian, you are obviously scholarly and erudite, but you oftentimes do not hold yourself to the same standards of Wiki authorship that you demand of others ..." Oemb1905 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Karaites and the Holocaust
I removed "A disproportionate number of Karaite Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and if these were the descendants of Khazars as suggested by some, genetic studies for these purposes are invalidated."

In fact, the Karaite communities of Crimea and Lithuania (and, for that matter, Germany) were NOT targeted by the Nazis for extermination. So how is the number killed "disproportionate"? Disproportionate compared to what?

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone is mixing up things I suppose. Wandalstouring 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Karaites in Lithuania? Was that term used just to mean non-rabbinical?  I thought the term came from the communities of North Africa?  Innocent question, let me know, Mr. Brian ... Oemb1905 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations, descent from Middle Eastern founder members
Existing article states - "Genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome DNA seems to have originated in Middle Eastern populations, as has the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population" - and I believe it's misleading.

The Middle-Eastern Y-chromosome (ie the male line) is general throughout both Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations. However, it is thought to have left the Middle East between 700BC and 0AD (sorry, seem to have lost the reference to this!). Thus suggesting these were traders who settled with local women.

The Middle-Eastern mitochondrial DNA (ie the female line, in this case, just 4 women) accounts for 40% of the Ashkenazi line and none of the Sephardic line. However it left the Middle East "within the last millenium". 

Three questions arise:

1) Have I got my facts right?

2) If I have got my facts right, is this statement an NPOV of the facts: "Genetic studies show that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Y-Chromosome DNA (the male line) seems to be descended from the Middle East, most probably from travellers/traders settling in various locations with local women, sometime between 700BC and 0AD. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA - the female line, in this case just 4 women) of 40% of the current Ashkenazi population also comes from the Middle East, but sometime within the last 1000 years.  Neither component is part of a population ethnically cleansed by the Romans".

3) Does this duplicate (or contradict) statements made elsewhere in the encyclopedia? PalestineRemembered 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) No. You're quoting "facts" from an old Wikipedia mirror.
 * 2) No, that's not correct. The mtDNA came from the Middle East in the past 2 millenia, and made a major expansion in the past millenium, and there's no evidence for the "local women" thesis. These aren't two separate populations, but one population.
 * 3) This information is fairly consistently used in the encyclopedia. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute "Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim"
Re. Humus_sapiens' abuse of adminship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

"Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" cited a year 2000 paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics to try to substantiate this article's position that Ashkenazim are not decended from the Khazars.

The cited reference has been superceeded by an October 2003 paper in the same journal that supports the opposite conclusion.

Humus_sapiens - Why are you a) removing these edits without reading or commenting in the discussion page and b)why do you respond to every edit with a claim of vandalism? I'm not 'vandalizing'. I'm editing and citing reputable sources. Wikipedia and this article are not your personal property. If you can not maintain a neutral point of view, you should be removed as an administrator.

The article also makes the claim or implies in several places that disputing the origin of the Ashkenazi as being entirely from the Near East amounts to anti-semetism. This is an obvious slur and needs to be removed. Please note that several of the authors of the 2003 paper are from Israel, at Israeli institutions. Note that - I now see that some of these references to anti-semitism have been changed to anti-zionism, which I see as a positive first step in bringing some much needed objectivity to this WP article.

Here's the citation. --> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries Doron M. Behar, Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, Michael F. Hammer, Ekaterina Bulygina, Dror Rosengarten, Abigail L. Jones, Karen Held, Vivian Moses, David Goldstein, Neil Bradman, and Michael E. Weale Am J Hum Genet. October 2003; 73(4): 768–779. Published online September 17, 2003.

Despite the 'Multiple Origins' wording of the title, the body of the article states that nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY), specificlly the R1a1 NRY is not consistent between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, indicating the male lines at least derive from different gene pools.

From the cited article --> "... Ashkenazi Levites have a high frequency of a distinctive, non–Near Eastern haplogroup." {R1a1}

From the cited article --> "the haplogroup {R1a1} is extremely rare in other Jewish groups and in non-Jewish groups of Near Eastern origin, but is found at high frequency in populations of eastern European origin."

From the cited article --> "it would be a remarkable coincidence that the geographic origins and demographic expansion of the Ashkenazi are within Northern and Eastern Europe and that this haplogroup is found at very high frequency within neighboring non-Jewish populations of European origin but not at high frequency elsewhere. An alternative explanation, therefore, would postulate a founder(s) of non-Jewish European ancestry, whose descendents were able to assume Levite status.

From the cited article --> "Intriguingly, the Sorbian tongue, relexified with a German vocabulary, has been proposed as the origin of Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazim, but there has been no suggestion of an association between Ashkenazi Levites in particular and the Sorbian language. One attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century (Dunlop 1967). This kingdom flourished between the years 700 c.e. and 1016 c.e. It extended from northern Georgia in the south to Bulgar on the Volga River in the north and from the Aral Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west—an area that falls within a region in which haplogroup R1a1 NRYs are found at high frequency (Rosser et al. 2000). Archival material also records migration of Khazars into the Hungarian Duchy of Taskony in the 10th century. The break-up of the Khazar Empire following their defeat by invading Rus led to the flight of some Khazars to central and northern Europe."

About the article in general, why Humus_sapiens, are there self referencing citations in the article?

I've edited "Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" again. I replaced the citation of the 2000 American Journal of Human Genetics re. paternally inherited Y chromosome paper with the citation for of the 2003 paper from the same journal and appearently some of the same researchers on the same topic. I ammended the openning sentence to reflect the different findings regarding the R1a1 NRY haplogroup in the more recent study. I left the reference to the origin of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). I believe this is a fair representation of the available research. The openning sentences now read "Genetic studies indicate that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome DNA originated in Eastern European populations, [6] Other studies indicate that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population are derived from the Near East.[7]."

Please respond civilly and leave the vandalism charge out. Thanks ColumbanAgain 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have completely misrepresented the source cited. This study was only about Levite Ashkenazim, not about Ashkenazim in general. In addition, the Khazar link that in the opinion of the authors could explain the high incidence of R1a1 amoing Ashkenazi Levites was only the speculation of the authors rather their finding. Beit Or 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the table http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600&rendertype=table&id=TB1

you can see that the only groups in the study that approach the same rate of expression for R1a1 are the only Eastern Europeans (Sorb and Belarussian) in the study. Hence the speculation of European origins. Re. Levites, in Jewish tradition Levites are, "considered to be those male descendants of Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob and paternal ancestor of Aaron. ... Male descendants of men who were not Jews at birth could be Israelites but not Cohanim or Levites." The point is that the research refutes the traditional origin of the Levite caste and indicates European, not Near East orgins. The focus of the paper is on Levites because "Levites would be expected to display lower gene diversity of NRY haplotypes than would Israelites", given the tradition that traces the male line of the caste back to Israel. The fact that the research contradicts the tradition throws doubt on the traditional story as to the origins of the male Levite line. Sticking soley to the traditional story and ignoring the cited paper is not fairly representing the situation.

In the absence of more research, (for example, looking for the prevalance of R1a1 in trans-Volga, trans-causcus populations), I left in wording that the origin issue is contentious. To continue to throw out or ignore the citation is not an appropriate response. If you have issues with the particular wording, try posting a rewrite. Thanks ColumbanAgain 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment has failed to address my objection in any way. Again, the study was not about Ashkenazim in general, only about a small group of them, and the findings of the study say nothing about the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim. Beit Or 11:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I did. I went back to the original citation, the one I replaced (which you had no issue with). It contains the following table http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769/T1 You can see in the table the row labled Europeans*. If you look, you will see that this row represents the following amalgamation of subjects "Europeans: 31 Russians (Rus), 44 British (Bri), 33 Germans (Ger), 40 Austrians (Aus), 81 Italians (Ita), 23 Spanish (Spa), 85 Greeks (Gre)" You can see from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600&rendertype=table&id=TB1 that haplotype distributions are likely to vary between these groups. It's useless to show the data summarized at this level only.

See Fig. 2. MDS plot of populations based on Y-chromosome haplotype data among the atomic nationalities/ethnic groups/sub groups. Now we have detail by subject group, but against what Y-chromosome haplotypes? Not shown.

I improved the article with a better documented, more relevant citation. Thanks ColumbanAgain 13:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

please don't edit the text without commenting in this discussion. The 2000 PubMed article that compares Ashkenaz NRYs to a summarized comglomeration of NRY regions from various european ethnic groups is not relevant for this discussion. All it demonstrates is that Ashkenaz NRY regions do not map well to the european "stew" in the study. I suggest that many of the ethnic groups in the collection tagged European* in the study, if broken out seperately would yeild similar results. Using the logic of humus_sapiens in this case, one would then conclude that Greeks are not of european decent, or Russians are not of European decent etc. ColumbanAgain 12:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the study is relevant because it is about the origins of all Ashkenazim, while the one you want to cite is about only a small share of them. I can see no point in arguing with you further, as you're simply repeating you non sequitur arguments. Beit Or 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ColumbanAgain 05:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) The issue you refuse to address is the irrelevance of your citation as detailed above. Specifically, All it demonstrates is that Ashkenaz NRY regions do not map well to the european "stew" in the study. I suggest that many of the ethnic groups in the collection tagged European* in the study, if broken out seperately would yeild similar results. Using the logic of humus_sapiens in this case, one would then conclude that Greeks are not of european decent, or Russians are not of European decent etc. The data in the study you cite clearly doesn't support the study conclusion. Here's the table again http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600&rendertype=table&id=TB1

One has to ask why the data in this table is only shown summarized in this manner, perhaps to avoid the same uncomfortable conclusions that you seem to be avoiding. Drop the ideology and stick to the facts please.

This citation http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600&rendertype=abstract is more germain because it does compare Ahkenaz NRYs to NRYs from some specific European ethnic groups. In the study there is significant compatability between Ashkenaz NRYs and the 2 Eastern European ethnic groups included. Your citation compares a conglomoration of European ethnic groups to Ashkenaz and other non-European groups and as such says nothing about the homology between Ashkenaz and specific European ethnic groups. No one is making the claim that Ashkenaz NRY transcripts indicate that they are "average or mean Europeans." It is this strawman that your citation addresses. As such, it really doesn't address any of the questions about Ashkenaz origins. Try to follow this Beit Or. Using similar logic to that used in your citation, any of the ethnic groups in the paper could be demonstrated to be not of European origin, because none of them are likely to be homolugus to some nonexistant "mean-European". Are you capable of understanding this point? If so, please respond. If not, please stop vandalizing that which you are not capable of comprehending? Again, one has to ask why the data is only presented in a way that obscures the more relevant and interesting comparisons of ethnic or sub-ethnic groups to each other? Another intresting question is why aren't Turkic or other trans-Caucasus trans-volga ethnic groups included in the study? I will look for such a study or do my own if relevant transcripts can be found in GenBank, etc. In the mean time, please defend your citation, find a better one or stop reverting to it.

ColumbanAgain 06:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)I now see that it was User:Briangotts who reverted to Beit Or's version without comment. So Briangotts please stop changing text without addressing the discussion.

203.170.189.129 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Revert again w/o comment, w/o addressing comment.
 * CoulmbanAgain, your claim is not supported by your source, which in any event only studied a small subgroup of Jews, the Levites, and which did not discuss Khazars. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ColumbanAgain 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the appearance, finally of some comment before reverting the text. "...in any event only studied a small subgroup of Jews, the Levites, and which did not discuss Khazars". The issue is are Ashkenaz decended from Europeans, specifically Eastern Europeans, as one might expect if the Ashkenaz were in fact the Khazars. I agree the study I cite does not perfectly address this issue, the Khazar Origin of Ashkenaz. I said the same above. My clear point is that the new PubMed 10/2003 citation better addresses the issue than the year 2000 study previously cited in the article.

And you or Beit Or, et.al. refuse to address this and instead keep reverting to the older citation and text. The original citation compares Ashkenaz NRY transcripts to an amalgam of European NRY transcripts. Thus, the original citation demonstrates nothing about Ashkenaz homology to specific European ethnic groups. As stated above, if you compared any ethnic group to this summarization, this mean clump of European NRY's (Labled Europe* in the data table), you would likely not find any significant homology, just as the study didn't find significant homology between Ashkenaz this Europe* strawman. Any objective, informed look at the data shown in the study would reach the same conclusion. Again, as I said above, if you compared Russian, Greek, Spanish or German or whatever NRY's to this non existant 'Europe*' strawman, you would most likely get the same result as the study shows for Ashkenaz and then using the logic of the study's authors', the Russian, Greek, German whatever would not be of European origin because of poor homology to the concocted strawman. This is because Russians or whatever are not average Europeans, in fact no one is. Ok, maybe a small number of such people with such varied ancestry do exist, but the odds of finding such for a study are small and would have not bearing on the question under discussion. In short, the original citation is not good science. If the details of ethnic group to ethnic group comparisons were published within the article then it would be useful, but the authors chose not to publish the details of the more specific comparisons for some reason. Here's the original citation.

I replaced the original citation with a better, more germain citation (PubMed 10/2003) and edited the first paragraph to reflect this. Of the European ethnic groups included in this study, Eastern Europeans, specifically Russian and Sorbian transcripts show good homology to the Ashkenaz NRYs in the study. Your complaint seems to be that the PubMed 10/2003 study only compares some Ashkenaz NRYs (Levites) to (some) European ethnic groups and indictes Eastern European origin. I submit that a study that compares some Ashkenaz NRYs to some other ethnic groups and shows good homology to some of these other ethnic groups is preferable to one that compares Ashkenaz NRY's to an abstraction that doesn't exist and is not likely to show good homolgy to anything else as the abstraction doesn't exist in nature and was only constructed, perhaps to reach a preconcieved idealogically driven conclusion. Here's the better PubMed 10/2003 citation An even better citation may turn up. For instance, a paper that compares Ashkenaz NRY transcripts to NRYs from tran-causcus, trans-volga populations.

Here's another way to look at it. The PubMed 10/2003 citation compares some apples to some apples. The older citation that you favor compares some apples to apple sauce.

I improved the article. I think you should leave it alone, find a better citation or explain why the previous citation is not useless in addressing the origin of Ashkenaz via genetic study.
 * Please review WP:NOR. You're drawing your own conclusions from studies, rather than letting the authors speak for themselves, and the study you refer to references a very small and specific subgroup of Jews. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please address the issue and not revert over and over again. For reasons painstakingly described above, the data in the original citation, that you Jayjg, Biet Or and Briangotts continue to revert does not support the study conclusion.  If I am wrong about this, please explain why.

The PubMed 10/2003 citation does address the point, the data supports the conclusions and here's what the authors have to say about the theoretical Khazar Ashkenaz link. From the cited article PubMed 10/2003 --> "Intriguingly, the Sorbian tongue, relexified with a German vocabulary, has been proposed as the origin of Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazim, but there has been no suggestion of an association between Ashkenazi Levites in particular and the Sorbian language. One attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century (Dunlop 1967). This kingdom flourished between the years 700 c.e. and 1016 c.e. It extended from northern Georgia in the south to Bulgar on the Volga River in the north and from the Aral Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west—an area that falls within a region in which haplogroup R1a1 NRYs are found at high frequency (Rosser et al. 2000). Archival material also records migration of Khazars into the Hungarian Duchy of Taskony in the 10th century. The break-up of the Khazar Empire following their defeat by invading Rus led to the flight of some Khazars to central and northern Europe." "You're drawing your own conclusions from studies, rather than letting the authors speak for themselves" - from jayjg above. You must realize that 100's of studies are published every day. Some are more rigoriously constructed than others.  Some reach conclusions not supported by the data, as is the case in my opinion with the PubMed 2000 article that you keep reverting to.  You can find a study that concludes anything you wish.  All kinds of outlandish ideas have studies that support them.  For this reason, cited studies have to be critically reviewed.  That's what I'm doing.  That's not what you are doing. From another discussion, above ""If you can cite an article in a reputable publication, that cites a genetic study that contradicts the one referenced, you are free to do so." - Briangotts 04:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)"

You are not being consistent. Please address the issue and stop the reverts. Thank you.

ColumbanAgain 09:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Again reverting revert made w/o comment. Please stop reverting the text w/o comment. Please address the discussion. Thanks
 * Again, the study you are promoting does not actually make the claims you are attributing to it, whereas the studies cited in the article actually do make the claims attributed to them. That is the difference between citing sources and original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Atil Massacre
I don't share Lev Gumilev's theories and I recall an interview with Pletneva in which she discarded his ideas as pseudo-science. Since ArbCom seems to endorse giving appropriate coverage to fringe theories, as well as to mainstream science, I believe we should enlarge on some of his ideas: they command a certain popularity in the former USSR. Here's an excerpt from Л.Н. Гумилев. Трагедия на Каспии в X в. и "Повесть временных лет". // Литература и искусство в системе культуры. М., Наука, 1988, с. 116-122:


 * "The Khazar khaganate - or, rather, a colony of the Radhanites - possessed in the 9th century immense treasures, obtained by trade in Chinese silks, Biarmian furs, and Slavic slaves. All the despots of the time supported these merchants: the Tan emperors in China, the Carolingians, the Abbasids and the Umayyads of Cordoba. The head of the merchants of Atil, known as "pekh", autocratically ruled the country, reducing the khagan (stemming from the Turkic house of Ashin) to an effective figurehead. The pekh's authority relied on the mercenaries from Gorgan. Their number fluctuated between 7,000 and 12,000; they were well trained and had superior arms. The bands of Pechenegs, Oghuz, Burtas or the Rus could not compete with these professional warriors. The Gurgan guard had one drawback: they would not slay other Muslims, their brothers-in-faith. They were good only at fighting Christians and pagans.


 * As long as Khazaria lived in peace with Baghdad, this was no major problem. In 842, the Daylamites (living along the south-western shore of the Caspian Sea) converted to Islam. By 872, they had conquered Gurgan and adjacent areas. The route from Atil through Derbent to Baghdad, so convenient for Rhadanites, was effectively barred by this new force. Between 874 and 901 China was rocked by a major rebellion, which disrupted the local economy and ruined the Khazar trade in silk. The merchants residing in China were killed. Under these circumstances, the Khazars were eager to find a force that would break the overlordship of the Daylamites in the Caspian. Such a force appeared in 909 in the shape of the Rus. They sacked the island of Abaskun, burnt down Sari, before being ousted into the sea by the Daylamites (in 913). On their way back, the Rus pillaged Shirvan and Baku, whose rulers were allied with the Khazars.


 * The Radhanites were known to abide by the rule: the defeated warriors should be executed. In their opinion, the warriors were paid for the victory and not for the defeat. When the decimated Rus' army reached Atil, they were massacred for three days. No prisoners were taken. About 30,000 troops were slain; the remainder managed to escape upstream the Volga to Bulgaria, where they were destroyed by the Bulgars. Nobody returned home from that macabre expedition."

So, the question is - should there be a separate article about the Massacre of Atil? The event which resulted in 30,000 victims clearly seems to warrant a mention in Wikipedia. I also invite everyone interested in the subject to comment on this. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there more sources? Wandalstouring 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The event is fairly well known and documented in secondary sources other than Gumilev, see Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus. Gumilev's presentation of the event is obviously slanted, as he implicates Radhanites for no apparent reason, and AFAIK, no other source supplies an exact figure for the casualties. Beit Or 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gumilev is known for extensively citing primary sources, though I don't have the article handy. I agree that his interpretation is biased, but the fact of the massacre (if it happened) is notable. Gumilyov was a geographer as well as a historian. He worked in the Institute of Geography and authored several papers demonstrating that the level of the Caspian rose by five meters in the second half of the tenth century. IIRC he thought the catastrophe contributed to the downfall of Khazaria, with the sea engulfing its capital, Atil. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think al-Masudi gives the 30000 figure for the Viking dead. I will have to check. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ColumbanAgain 11:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Another Spurious Vandalism charge from Humus_sapiens. See msg below. Please read and address comments re. Khazak Origin of Ashkenaz before making changes. The dispute revolves around citations. Address the issue or you are the one committing vandalism.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ msg text User talk:ColumbanAgain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Khazars. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beit Or 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Beit Or 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CoulmbanAgain, your claim is not supported by your source, which in any event only studied a small subgroup of Jews, the Levites. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Caspian Sea and mercenaries
What is the significance of the last sentence in this paragraph in the article:

"Khazar armies were led by the Khagan Bek and commanded by subordinate officers known as tarkhans. A famous tarkhan referred to in Arab sources as Ras or As Tarkhan led an invasion of Armenia in 758. The army included regiments of Muslim auxiliaries known as Arsiyah, of Khwarezmian or Alan extraction, who were quite influential. These regiments were exempt from campaigning against their fellow Muslims. Early Russian sources sometimes referred to the city of Khazaran (across the Volga River from Atil) as Khvalisy and the Khazar (Caspian) sea as Khvaliskoye. According to some scholars such as Omeljan Pritsak, these terms were East Slavic versions of "Khwarezmian" and referred to these mercenaries." --Frode Inge Helland 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't parse it, too. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  07:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At least a comfort :o) --Frode Inge Helland 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2003 DNA evidence adds nothing to Khazar connection, but suggests European ancestry for Ashkenazi Levite males.
I've added the following to the article (at section "Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim"):
 * But in 2003, The American Journal of Human Genetics published "Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries", which adds nothing to the Khazar connection, but suggests that the male line for Ashkenazi Levites has a European origin.
 * The abstract of this article includes ".... Ashkenazi Levite microsatellite haplotypes within this haplogroup are extremely tightly clustered, with an inferred common ancestor within the past 2,000 years. Comparisons with other Jewish and non-Jewish groups suggest that a founding event, probably involving one or very few European men occurring at a time close to the initial formation and settlement of the Ashkenazi community, is the most likely explanation for the presence of this distinctive haplogroup found today in >50% of Ashkenazi Levites".

I don't claim to understand this new material (or the previous 2000 research) fully, hence I've not deleted anything, nor tried to meld the two portions.

I'm hoping another editor will do this (and not delete the new evidence, as I understand has happened in the past).

I'd also hope that the references to Koestler and his novel be heavily trimmed or deleted. The comments in their current form serve only to confuse readers.

PalestineRemembered 10:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's completely unrelated to Khazars. Beit Or 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And Levites comprise 5% of Jews at most. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal request re: Khazars
ColumbanAgain has requested informal mediation regarding Khazars and has identified Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Briangotts as interested parties.

I've tried to summarize the dispute on the mediation page, and have asked a few brief questions that I hope may assist in reaching consensus. If anyone else feels like chiming in, please feel free to post a short note in the discussion section of the mediation page. (Alternately, hopefully once we focus the issues we can bring any proposed resolution here for a wider discussion).

Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. TheronJ 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone objects, I am closing the Khazar ancestry mediation for lack of response by ColumbanAgain, who hasn't edited since requesting the mediation approximately two weeks ago. If Columban or any other editors feel the mediation would be helpful, I'd be happy to reopen it, but at this time, there's nothing to mediate.  Thanks, everyone, for your quick responses and helpful attitudes.  TheronJ 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, and the Khazar-Jew Theory
Perhaps Sacha Baron Cohen subscribes to the theory that most Ashkenazi Jews are originally from Khazaria since he chooses to base his famous Borat character out of Khazakhstan, which is roughly the same area that the Khazars/Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to originate from (see The Thirteenth Tribe). --172.151.71.190 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat the character is not a Jew and certainly not Ashkenazi. I fail to see the connection (or indeed if there was such a connection, the relevance). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on Brian, he totally speaks Hebrew after all!Oemb1905 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point -- there is a theory that Ashkenazi Jews originated in Khazaria (not Israel) and converted to Judaism only in the 8th-9th Centures C.E. The western portion of Khazakhstan corresponds to historical Khazaria, so it's almost like Sacha Cohen (an Ashkenazi Jew) is poking fun at the people from the same region where Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to have originated from (and to make matters even more 'funny,' Borat is anti-Semitic).  Face it: if Borat grew a beard and had a NY accent, he'd be Jewish all the way because Sacha Cohen looks like a Caucasianized, Eastern European Jew (even though he is reported to have a Sephardic mother). --152.163.101.12 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * haha! we think alike! this was my exact impression when hearing about/after seeing the movie. the actor, Sacha Baron Cohen, has distinct semitic physical features (perfectly matching those that i've seen in the Venetian jewish ghetto, some four years ago), while the (abhominal) character portrayed by the actor is a khazar (jew or not, the character represents an ethnic khazar). after seeing this movie my uttermost personal opinion that sephardic jews don't really like the ashkenazi because of the existing suspicion involving their khazar (turanic) ancestry (aroused by studies similar to Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe) has, at least to me, been very much confirmed. :D IleanaCosanziana 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll bet that sacha baron cohen never heard of any khazars, and he didnt intend that his character would portrayed as one. some people looking for small things to justify their beliefs. "hey look! sacha he's a jew and his character is a kazakh! thats a hint about ashkenazi khazar ancestry!" what a stupid thought. and no, sephardis doesn't have any grudge on ashkenazis regarding their possible khazar ancestry. Varcety 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is but personally, I'm done with this conversation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry for intruding and presenting a somewhat personal opinion, but seeing as you admitted in missing the point, i thought i should have a try at explaining that what you've missed. :) (see above) IleanaCosanziana 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You all have certainly missed that Sasha Cohen is a COMEDIAN! Hello???FlaviaR (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This article got a media mention, and so did this discussion page
This is an "excellent, dispassionate" article, and its editors are revolutionaries creating a new way to tell history, according to this profile of Wikipedia! PlainWrap 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

incorrect maps
these maps are incorrect, more of the caucuses should be included, like georgia and azerbaijan, did you know present day baku and tbilsi, were both of the khazar khagnate, someone should up a map showing this, i strongly disagree with the use of these factually inacurate maps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.166.104.26 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree. as i said in the discussion page of the "World_820.png" image: [...]the ethnicity of the people living in the northern part (north of the Lower Danube) of what is represented on this map as "bulgars" has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the turkic bulgars, nor with that of the slavs represented further on in the north. i am speaking of the territory which is now known as the Muntenian plain, belonging to Romania, and to the Romanian people who are very much indo-european (northern Thracian tribes + Roman Empire veterans & colonists, actually). please revise. i suggest using the historical name Wallachs, as that is the name used in contemporary chronicles to designate and distinguish Latin people, living in that above-mentioned area, from the Slavs or the Turkic migrators. please revise, or i shall have to do it myself. in which case, i shall be very tempted to wipe significant amounts off of what the map currently shows as territory belonging to the "bulgars" even from today's Bulgaria, and write Slavs instead, seeing that the language spoken in Bulgaria is (and has been before, and during the First Bulgarian Empire) quite Slavic (see the page referring to Bulgarian), and also seeing that the number in which the bulgars migrated to Europe, some thousands, was very poor in comparison with the already settled indo-european people that were living there since... long ago. IleanaCosanziana 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Baku and Tbilisi were sacked by Khazars, but never permanently occupied. They were never integral parts of the Khaganate.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

About that coin image ...
Sorry, folks, that's not what the coin says in Arabic. The only part I can read, on the left-hand image, says "lā ilāha illā", which means "There is no God other than ..." The rest is too blurry to make out. I see the letters sīn, wāw and lām on the right-hand image, but if that's part of "rasūl", the word for "messenger", where's the rā?

Is it possible to get a clearer image, please?

Cbdorsett 07:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong coin was uploaded. It has been corrected. The one there before is listed as an "Ard al-Khazar" coin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the effort - but I still can't make out the words on either coin. I don't see "Ard al-Khazar" at all, but maybe that's because of the worn condition of the coin and the quality of the photo. Are there any better images? Does the Swedish museum have the complete text, authenticated by a scholar? Is there a native speaker of Arabic that can read the words? I'm also concerned about the copyright on those images - the museum's website has a copyright notice. Cbdorsett 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The museum's cite clearly describes each coin and is a reliable, valid source for the "Ard al-Khazar" and "Moses is the Prophet of God" inscriptions.
 * 2. The photos appear, at very least, under fair use. In any event, it is unclear that any party has the right to attach intellectual property rights to photographs of ancient currency. Simply slapping a copyright notice on a website does not ensure copyright ownership on each item contained therein. Witness The Jewish Encyclopedia.com, which purports to claim copyright over text and images long ago lapsed into the public domain. There is no enforceable copyright on these materials (there is, of course, copyright on the original materials created by the website owner). Avoid copyright paranoia.
 * --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. See my comments at Avoid copyright paranoia. Your points:

Cbdorsett 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Slapping a copyright notice on something does not convert public domain material into copyrighted material. You are right on that one.
 * The legal definition of "fair use" does not include "I found it on the Internet."
 * The coins themselves are in the public domain, but the photos are owned by the person that took them, or his employer, which in this case is probably the museum. If I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, I can sell it, I can modify it, and I can sue anyone who uses MY picture. Nothing stops them from going and taking their own picture and selling that, but MY picture is MINE. Maybe I'm proud of my photographic skills. I can copy any of Shakspr's plays as long as I copy from the original, public domain, editions, typos and all. I can't copy from the Penguin edition or anybody else's. THEIR copy is THEIRS. Legally enforceable.
 * Wikipedia has forms (at least in English) for requesting an actual license to use materials. I don't know if it's been translated into Swedish.
 * I'm putting you on notice now. If there is no clarification of the ownership of those coin images and Wiki's right to use them, I will invoke the Wiki procedures to have them removed permanently. I'll give you a couple of weeks. It's kind of too bad, really. Those coins really do add a lot to the text, but if we ain't got the rights, we ain't got the rights.
 * The translations offered by the museum clearly do not cover the entire text of the coins, and what they say is there is not legible.


 * You are very much mistaken and before you go threatening to remove images, I suggest you thoroughly research the copyright law on which you base your assumptions. Photographs of 2-dimensional works that exist in the public domain are NOT eligible for copyright (at least not in the U.S., where these servers are located. You cannot claim copyright ownership over such a photograph, nor can you sue anyone who uses it. A photograph you take of the Mona Lisa, which you claim would be your property is a CLASSIC example of uncopyrightable, public domain work. You can slap copyright tags on it till the cows come home, that does not grant you ANY legal rights over the photograph, despite the fact that it is "your" photograph. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Photographs of 3-dimensional art is, in many cases, copyrightable.
 * The status of coins is ambiguous. As far as I am aware there has not been a court case that has determined the validity of a copyright over images of currency, and a court may well yet find that coins are 2-dimensional works or are uncopyrightable for other reasons. That is why Wikipedia has a special copyright tag specifically for currency.
 * EVEN IF the museum has a valid claim for copyright over the coin images, any attempt by them to force the removal of the coins from WP would fail because of the doctrine of fair use. The images of the coins are used in this article for the same purpose as their original intent- i.e., to illustrate the use of Jewish and Khazar references on coinage designed to imitate Caliphate dirhems, and to communicate the determinations of the discoverer. The source of the images is clearly given, and is the only reasonably available source as the museum has sole possession of the Spillings coins.
 * As far as the inscriptions, the museum is a reliable source. With all due respect to you, you are not. That's simply how it works on Wikipedia. The museum's description of the inscriptions, which is cited, is valid for use in Wikipedia. Your inability to read the coins does not render that description invalid, as it is original research.
 * I will defend to the maximum extent necessary these images and their inclusion in this article and any other appropriate place on WP.
 * --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.
 * About photographs of two-dimensional works:
 * Coins are not two-dimensional works. Photos of coins are still an open question. The issue is bigger than you or me - it is a policy-level issue to be decided by Wikipedia management. Whatever they say goes, on this precise subject, after consulting with their lawyers.
 * "Slavish copies" - what museums typically strive for - are clearly not copyrightable, at least for two-dimensional original works of art. The court case you cite makes it clear that many if not most photographs involve sufficient originality to permit the copier to register a valid copyright. If someone were to ask me, I would vote for non-copyrightability of these coin images, but it's not for me to say.
 * Classic case of uncopyrightability? That's the opposite of what the case says.
 * About photographs of three-dimensional works
 * The court did not address the question. It's still open and subject to speculation.
 * Wikipedia has a tag.
 * Good for Wikipedia. Having a tag does not solve anything. Policy-makers need to make a decision and adjust the wording of the tag so that it is clear that they have taken a position one way or another. A tag that leaves an important question open to discussion will generate lots of discussion. Like this one. The tag could say:
 * Faithful reproductions of paper currency are uncopyrightable and in the public domain. The legal status of faithful reproductions of coins, such as legal currency, is unclear. The management of Wikipedia has decided to treat faithful photographs of public domain coins as public domain in themselves. This does not apply to privately minted, copyrightable coin designs. See Copyrights

Cbdorsett 10:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use.
 * It's a four-part test. "Not available from any other source" is irrelevant except to teachers (who are allowed a short time to use something.
 * Commercial/noncommercial: The online Wikipedia is noncommercial, so one point for fair use. However, Wikipedia makes and sells CD-ROM versions. That's a commercial use. Including copyright problems in online Wikipedia articles creates a lot more work when it comes time to make another CD version. Point taken away.
 * Nature of the copyrighted work: Assuming the photo is copyrighted (see above), its nature is a copy of a historically important object. Probably one point for fair use.
 * Percentage of the original work that is copied: Here, it's 100%. One point against fair use.
 * Effect on the potential market for the original, copyrighted work: Making the image available for free on the Internet, or selling it on CD, would completely destroy the marketability of the original work. Another point against.
 * The source is clearly identified.
 * Good. It's polite and probably required by Wikipedia policy. But it has nothing to do with either copyrightability or fair use.
 * Reliability of source:
 * The museum did not publish the entire text of what appears on either side of either of the coins. That hardly qualifies it as a reliable source.
 * I pointed out that I can't read either one of the asserted legends on the coins. This does not mean that the asserted legends exist. It means that one Arabic speaker can't read them. I'd like to hear - really like to hear - from someone who is a native speaker. Until then, it's irresponsible to claim that the coins say anything at all. If a Swedish museum publishes a photograph of an ancient Japanese coin and says the legend reads, "Bill Clinton really did inhale," any speaker of Japanese can challenge it. The same principle applies here. You want to tone down the controversy? Take away the supposed legend. But it would be better to get a complete transcription, don't you agree?
 * That's not what "original research" is all about. If I could read the coin, I could transcribe it and translate it. Nothing original about that.
 * You will defend the images.
 * Good. Please do. But please read Ownership of articles first.
 * I am not attacking either you or the images. I am trying to protect Wikipedia from "harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work." (L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 857 (1976).) Wikipedia certainly has better things to do with its money than pay off such people.
 * I do not intend to delete the images myself. But I will flag and tag this article and every place those images appear so that the Wikipedia higher-ups can deal with it.
 * Permission.
 * Are you resisting writing to the museum to get permission? That's what I planned to do in the event you did not reply. I would have also asked them for a complete transcription. That's not too much to ask.


 * "Coins are not two-dimensional works." - Nonsense, by the same token paintings are not strictly 2D. "... it's irresponsible to claim that the coins say anything at all." - another nonsensical argument. I don't see ownership issues here either. These images stayed here for many months and nobody had a problem until User:Cbdorsett arrived. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cbdorsett 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What matters here is what some court will say in the future, not whether bas-relief art is 2D or 3D. That's a non-issue. Logical, I agree, but irrelevant.
 * Someone who can read Arabic says that the coins do not say what the museum claims they say. Someone who does not read Arabic says what? That the argument is nonsensical? I stand by what I said.
 * Ownership issues. We didn't talk about that one much. If the museum claims ownership, that's an issue. Until someone writes and gets their OK, it's an issue waiting to happen. Even Briangotts admits part of this: "In any event, it is unclear that any party has the right to attach intellectual property rights to photographs of ancient currency." It's unclear. That's what the problem is. Creating those issues is not very responsible. If someone wants to be cavalier about their own exposure to lawsuits, let them. Here, we're talking about Wikipedia, not just logical definitions of what the law should be. In the law, when the judge doesn't agree with your logic, he or she calls that kind of definition-shaving "casuistry."
 * "I was able to copy it for many months before anyone claimed" is neither a defense to a lawsuit nor a factor courts consider in determining whether a work is copyrighted, or whether the doctrine of fair use applies.
 * To clarify my position a bit: If I were a legislator or a judge, I would vote for making images of coins noncopyrightable. I am neither. If I were on Wikipedia's board of directors, I would say, "it's better to be safe than sorry. Get permission, then there's no problem no matter what the law is." I'm not on that board, but we have people who are. Let them know what you think.
 * Next time, please leave your own comments, as many as you want, but try not to garbage up what I wrote.

You are welcome to seek permission from the museum if you wish. From the standpoint of copyright law, the museum's permission or refusal to grant it is irrelevant to whether the images can appear here under fair use (if copyrightable) or under public domain (if not). If the museum gives you a complete transcript of the coins, that would be fantastic. Your personal inability to read the inscription on the coins is still irrelevant to the reliability of the source. I don't think anything will be accomplished by further re-hashing of these arguments. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute the transcription of the coins. That's why I tagged it. It's a good-faith dispute. Your removal of the tag was not. The tag serves a purpose. It allows people who are in the know to find articles where they can clear up disputes. By removing the tag, you are preempting any review. Surely you are not taking this all personally? You evidently contributed most of the material in this article, and it seems reasonably well done. But I caught you in a mistake - maybe two. The legends are clearly insufficiently described, and there may be a copyvio. I'll write to the museum, all right. And I'll talk to a friend who is a native speaker of Arabic. Give me a little time, and don't delete the tag until the controversy is resolved. By the way, the free advice you got from the "copyright lawyer in your firm" was based on the premise that the image would be used only in the online version of Wikipedia. Why don't you take a minute and ask for a little more free advice. What about if the image is part of a CD-ROM that is sold for profit? What if there are 10,000 similar images on the CD-ROM? Cbdorsett 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "If the museum claims ownership, that's an issue." Owning something and owning a copyright to it are not one and the same thing. You own a photograph of you, but it is the photographer who owns the copyright. Beit Or 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost right. In a photo of me, the photographer owns the copyright, which means he can control the sale and distribution of the photo and all copies of it. My rights are different: my right to privacy, and the right to control commercial uses of my likeness. If I create a work of art and you photograph it, I have a copyright in the work of art, and you have a copyright in the photo. But you can't sell your photo without a license of my copyright. The controversy here is a bit different. The coin itself is in the public domain, which means anyone can copy it and sell the copies. If photographic copies of a coin can't be copyrighted, then anyone can copy the copies without interference from the photographer. If they can be copyrighted but the doctrine of fair use applies, then the fair user can copy without interference. Cbdorsett 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I objected to article ownership charge by Cbdorsett, who seems to try any argument to dispute the image. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * CBd, to clarify further, your friend who is a native Arabic speaker is also not a reliable source under WP rules. So his dispute with the Museum's description, if he has one, is entirely irrelevant. If you or he publish a paper in a reputable journal disputing the Museum's description, that WOULD be a contrary view raised in a reliable source. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, in the absense of cooperation from you, I intend to send the transcription to the museum. Then, if they agree, I'll change the legend myself. Cbdorsett 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Continuing to argue copyright law is one thing; adding disputed tags to the images when you have NO reliable source disputing the interpretation of the museum's website is simple vandalism and will be reverted on sight. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Point me to the rule, please. Cbdorsett 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. Instead of trying to help, you reverted my tag AGAIN. Now I'm telling you. Read some Wikipedia policies, especially including the following:

. . . . . . . . . First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits?
 * Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:
 * You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others. Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopaedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.
 * You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited critical material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. One defamation case could bankrupt the Foundation and see us shut down.
 * How to pull back from the brink:

Let's try to resolve this without invoking arbitration, shall we?

Cbdorsett 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a content dispute. This is you trying to unilaterally challenge a reliable source without presenting any source of your own that is similarly reliable. The remainder of your statements require no response. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cbdorsett 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This dispute is about several things, including content.
 * You claim that I, and all other speakers of Arabic, are disallowed to read, transcribe and translate the text of the coins, from the original images. On the other hand, you claim the right for yourself to translate the purported text from Swedish. How is one "original research" and the other is not"?
 * I did not realize that you have had copyright problems with this article in the past - they are still not gone. This is partly not your fault: the legislatures (Congress in the US, and other authorities in other countries) have failed to do their job of writing a clear and cogent guideline for well-meaning individuals like you and me. The courts (in the US, at least) are limited in what they can do (they can only decide controversies that are before them). It would have been nice if the court that decided the photo-of-painting case could have given guidelines that would clearly apply to other types of cases, such as photos of coins, but they didn't. They gave guidelines that arguably might apply. The courts are not helping us much here.
 * There are two copyright issues here, and as I pointed out before, the mere existence of a Wikipedia tag does not solve either one of them. One is whether such a photo bears any copyright at all. The answer from the court system is a resounding maybe. We can do an end-run around that little roadblock by getting explicit permission from the potential copyright claimant, a step which you evidently are completely unwilling to take, instead, spending countless hours here arguing. I said that I will write to the museum, and I will. You are off the hook for that little task. I just need a week or so - I want to write them a really good letter, not just a boilerplate.
 * The other copyright issue is fair use, of which plenty is written above.
 * Looming behind these two copyright issues is a much bigger one which you have declined to comment on. I think it is irresponsible to gamble with Wikipedia's money, assuming that being "right" about what the law "should be" will necessarily trump what some unknown judge might decide in some class action case by the name of John Doe, et al. vs. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Of course, Wikipedia would win such a lawsuit, right? Yeah, slam dunk you say. Okay, maybe, but even if you are right, win at what cost? Law firms don't come cheap these days. Oh, okay, some big law firm will take it on on a pro bono basis. Maybe, maybe not. What about the damage to Wikipedia's reputation in the meantime, while the suit drags through the courts? Sure, Wikipedia will try a motion for summary judgment, since, after all, it is a question of law, not fact, right? But even if we win there, the hungry plaintiffs and their lawyers (working on a contingent fee, a percentage of a potentially large pile of money) won't gracefully accept the ruling of the trial court. And because it's a question of law, the court of appeal will look at everything afresh - IF they see value in engaging in some judicial legislating. Sure, most appeals fail, but some win. This issue is bigger than the caption on your two coins. What's your proposed solution?
 * For myself, I do not particularly care to be labeled by you or anyone else. You have not bothered to read the Wikipedia policy articles that you throw my way, but you have no problem with calling me a vandal. I don't need to have you retract opprobrious statements like that, but it would be the right thing to do. And the same goes for your supporter Berig, who likes the word "troll." There's a Wikipedia policy or essay on that topic, too.
 * You have evidently done a lot of work on this article. I'm assuming most of it is good stuff, but I haven't read it. You even requested a peer review and nominated your improved article for some kind of award. You know, there are people in this organization that might help you toward that goal - including me. Right now, though, we have a four-pronged problem to deal with.
 * I'll tell you right now what I plan to do. Your actions, of course, may influence part or all of it.
 * I'm going to get an accurate transcription and translation of the two coins.
 * I will work with the museum about the text of the coins, as well as clarify their position on licensing whatever copyright they may have.
 * I will work with the Wikimedia Foundation on the policy issue.
 * Most of all, I'm going to chill for a while. Right now, I'm of a mind to bring in a mediator, but maybe that won't be needed. I'll have to see.
 * Don't unilaterally proclaim this discussion over. It ain't.

I will not address the bulk of your assertions regarding copyright law, which are simply wrong for many reasons that will be addressed if you choose to take this to arbitration. Nor will I address your unwarranted and incomprehensible attacks on Berig, who is more than capable of holding his own against you. However, you ask why it ok for me to cite to a modern Swedish description of a coin from an academic, reliable source, but not ok for you to dispute that description based on your purported knowledge of Arabic. At the risk of repeating parts of what I've stated before:
 * 1. The Swedish description, which is a reliable source, is readily available for all to read. If I have mistranslated the description, then that is one thing. But you can't "dispute" the description unless (a) you can demonstrate that I have mistranslated the Swedish or (b) another reliable, academic source presents an opposing translation.
 * 2. The coin images are, as you note, difficult to make out and the inscriptions are difficult to read. We therefore rely on the academic source to provide the transcription and translation. Reading modern Arabic is not the same as reading numismatic Abbasid caligraphy. You may or may not be able to read Arabic, but that does not qualify you to dispute the museum's translation as you are not a reliable source. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Debate
First, a thread from a discussion with Beit Or as background: Aloha, Beit Or. With the upfront caveat that I was not the author (nor do I have any idea who it was), I'm curious why you reverted the text posted by 172.129.70.39. As an outside, disinterested reader, it didn't seem like POV pushing to me at all, but rather additional and possibly relevant information. Seems to me that more information (as long as it is accurately reported and sourced, which this was) is better than less, especially when the original text seemed to give an inadequate accounting of other evidentiary sources. Cheers. Arjuna 11:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon added the word "tentative" at the beginning of the paragraph, apparently insinuating that some later, better study will support the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim. Furthermore, the cited study[1] does not in any way undercuts the evidence in favor of the Middle Eastern origin of the Jews, as the anons "however" implied; if anything, it provided further evidence for this generally held view. In any event, the Khazar hypothesis is already debunked in the article; further details are unnecessary. This is an article on Khzars, not Ashkenazim. Beit Or 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And my response:

Beit Or, thanks for your comments, and particularly for pointing out the singularly obvious that this is an article on Khazars, not Ashkenazim. However, as you know, the meme that “Jews are decended from Khazars” exists willy-nilly, and thus the issue is a relevant one. As one who was aware of this meme, I sought out the article simply seeking accurate, objective information with which to assess its merit or lack thereof. I do find it somewhat perplexing that this issue is clearly seen by some (many?) as fraught with political implications. Despite the Koestler view also being espoused by some with various anti-Israel political agendas, to a disinterested observer this is rather confusing, since, as the article accurately points out, it is decidedly un-pernicious either to the Jewish people or the cause of the State of Israel.

However -- and just FYI -- as a disinterested observer the discussion of this issue as it is currently written in the article seems about as POV as they come. In fact, in being so one-sided and rhetorically heavy-handed, the dismissal of the Koestler theory seems so facile that it actually comes across as somewhat suspicious. This is not particularly helped given your deletion of the material added by 172.129.70.39. That material seems relevant and, if as you point out, it does not contradict the debunking of Koestler, why was it necessary to be deleted? As for 172.129.70.39’s use of the word “tentatively”, I hardly think that is POV. Genetic mapping of global populations is still in its very early days, and there is indeed much that science does not know about the complex movement of human societies in pre-modern times. It may indeed be highly unlikely that “some later, better study will support the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim”, but to beg the question as you do is hardly scientific, is it?

In fact, I have to say that your deletion of this information seems like active suppression of information that you find unhelpful. Now, it may be the case that your position is correct, but doing it in such a heavy-handed fashion invites suspicion. The discussion of this issue as currently written is actually not very convincing, which is a shame. Instead, it reads as piece of bullying rife with logical fallacies. (Appeal to authority; ad hominem / guilt by association). Just FYI. Here’s a good compelling case that could have been made but wasn’t: assimilated peoples almost always carry linguistic traces from their area of geographic origin. If so, one would expect Yiddish to contain cognates of Turkic languages, but apparently (I’m not a Yiddish speaker so this is based on my informed understanding) it does not. This is compelling evidence that Ashkenazim are not primarily decendants of the Khazars. That’s a freebie, feel free to use it. Anyway, with all due respect, I really don’t have a dog in this fight and was simply looking for evidence one way or another. Good luck with the article, and aloha. Arjuna 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm now done and outta here. I simply wanted this discussion to be part of the record for this article. Best of luck to all and cheers. Arjuna 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did all the Khazars go?
Where are they now? does any body know? Are they hiding in a ginnie bottle on a remote shore some where?

No really, scientifically where are they?71.220.89.177 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC) shouldn't we write a Kotzari memorial peom about them. The Khazars ( Ashkulz as they called themselves) and proven that Khazar word is a just a derivation from the original Ashkuz. May be Ashkul Levi knows?71.220.89.177 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all misinformation and nonsense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what the above user probably meant to say was that the Scythians were called Ashkuzi by the Assyrians.The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IleanaCosanziana (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
 * that fact (that the Scythinas are called Ashkuzi in old assyrian records) and the fact that some historians associate Scythians with the substratum of turkic people (one of the three men figures on an electrum cup from the Kul'Oba kurgan burial near Kerch stands with his legs crossed in the "turkish manner") is probably base of most arguments regarding the hypothesis that today ashkenazim jews are none other than the turkic khazars. IleanaCosanziana 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is wishful thinking. Why you would wish it to be so, I can't say. But you have drawn no actual connection between the Kul'Oba kurgan burial (which is not a Khazar burial at all) and Ashkenazi Jewry.
 * There is no dispute that in ancient Hebrew Ashkenaz referred to Scythia. However, Medieval Jews assigned biblical place-names to various unrelated areas wherever they settled (in much the same way as early American Christians named many towns in the New World "Bethlehem", "Shiloh", "Zion", etc. In medieval Jewish nomenclature, Sepharad (formerly the Aegean islands) was used to refer to Spain, Kedar (modern day Jordan) and Canaan to Slavic Eastern Europe, Ashkenaz to Germany, Tzarfat (Sarepta in Phoenicia) to France, and so on. No serious scholar suggests that these place names were assigned to coincide with the ethnoi referred to in the Bible; the people doing the naming may not even have known to whom the names originally applied. There is no connection between the ancient term Ashkenaz and its latter assignment as the name of Central Europe (and its adoption by the Jews of that region). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i have not drawn any connection because that was not my intention. if you will be so kind as to look again upon the style i chose to employ in the above statements, you will see that my intention was merely that of explaining what a more fervent user tried to present but whose coherence or arguments got lost in translation. if my intention was that of an argumentative essay, be sure that the khazars would have been long proved the founders of all modern european states. i shall come back in the afternoon with the certain "drawing of connections". it's sleeping time for this orator :P IleanaCosanziana 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * back. a bit later than i had expected. now to start, develop, and end my argumentation. Firstly, if a man in his right mind would take what you have said as true, then what would he make of folklore, legends or mythology? evidently, he would not know what to make of them and he would discard them, or, in any case, ignore their importance. according to its definition, a legend arises from a true event which did occur in time, not the historical one, but the archaic time (archaic, in the sense explained by Mircea Eliade in works like The Sacred and the Profane), in illo tempore, the "once upon a time" time (as the one present in fairy tales). Folklore, legends, mythology - these things all prove that man does remember, poorly, but he does. the initial meaning contained by them may be partly forgotten, and that's why fairy tales circulate in different versions, and that is why they change in time - because people, at a certain point, forget the initial meaning, and, not understanding certain details, remove them or change them so as to give the tales more credibility/appropriateness in the context they are presented, yet the idea remains within the collective memory/consciousness, never actually being lost. Thus, if a man in his right mind would take what you have said as true, then it would mean that he believes man to have a very short memory, to forget quite easily, your concept presented above implying the inexistence of ancestry awareness, background awareness (for example, i am very aware of the fact that i am of dacian/getae origins through the 160 words and their 1600 derivatives that i use daily), your arguments imply, generally put, the inexistence of folklore. yet folklore does exist. so must the memory of man. This concept (that man does remember) applies perfectly to the jew, a word which not only implies ethnicity but also tradition/religion. and their tradition, whether it is the exoteric one (the Talmud) or their esoteric one (the Kabbalah), has been kept quite well. In this respect, actually, (semitic+religious) jews are the best example of a nation who has kept it's identity throughout history because of their religion, and in that direction you have, as argument, the rules written in the Deuteronomy, which forbid the members of the jewish community (jews) to marry members outside the community (nonjews)chapter 7, 3, a rule from which ethnic awareness arises without any trace of doubt. Thus man does remember, and the jew is the perfect example of that. Secondly, to refer to more non/metaphysical matters, i must say that you have spared me of an additional argumentation by accepting that in ancient Hebrew "Ashkenaz" referred to Scythians. In actuality, Ashkenaz referred to Cimmerians (Askeneze was the son of Gomer. i.e., Cimmerians). The Cimmerians, whose name appears in the Odyssey of Homer, occupied the southern Russian steppe from about 1200 BC. Their civilization, which belongs to the Late Bronze Age, is barely distinguishable from that of other peoples with whom they mingled. In any case, from the second half of the 8th century BC, the Cimmerians were replaced by the Scythians. And since you found that there is "no dispute that in ancient Hebrew Ashkenaz referred to Scythia", I won't dwell much on proving how the synthesis between Cimmerians and Scythians did occur, and agree with you on that. I shall emphasize again on the fact that Scythians were called Ashkuzi in Assyrian texts. so we first have (the nomadic) Cimmerians who were called Ashkenaz by the jews themselves, who lived in the Caucasus plain, and who eventually and mysteriously turned to/were engulfed by the Scythians that were called by the Assyrians as Ashkuzi. It is important to emphasize that Cimmerians and Scythians used to live in the same parts where from the turkic tribes emerged much later on. This does not mean in any case that there is an ethnic relation between the first two (which most scholars consider to be indo-european) and the latter turkic tribes. Although i've mentioned the Kul'Oba kurgan burial and the pot on which a scythian was depicted to sit in what, today, is badly named as the "turkish position", no actual links exist. The turkic tribes may have borrowed the sitting position from the Scythians (seeing as both lived in the same parts, but in different periods), but not the blood. Yet, the ethnic relation between the Scythians, called in ancient Hebrew Ashkenaz, as you very well said, and the turkic tribes has no relevance here anyway. A man can only be aware of his own ethnicity, just as he can only be aware of his own hand, foot, or stomach ache, the rest's ethnicity is not determined through awareness, because he cannot be aware of another's ethnicity. he can only know about other people's ethnicity, but never be aware. Thus, what the jews knew was that the people who lived in the parts of the Caucasus steppe (in the time of the Cimmerians/Scythians) were called Ashkenaz, they also knew that others (the Assyrians) called them Ashkuzi. Then, what would be so abhominal, so absurd, so irrational, so illogical  -considering the above proven thesis that man does remember- what would be, thus, so illogical, in calling the latter turkic tribes (mainly the Khazars who dominated the Caucasus steppe for quite a long time in medieval periods)  with the same name as the former inhabitants of the place, calling them Ashkenaz? i think there is nothing illogical in this. IleanaCosanziana 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your seem to be arguing for the purpose of seeing your own written word, as you have said nothing new in this long post. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * it must seem like that to someone who is not open enough so as to actually be able to read and, at the same time, follow an argumentation similar to the one above. IleanaCosanziana 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that I have understood your arguments quite well, and responded appropriately. If you bring up any new points I will consider them and respond; else as far as I am concerned this thread has grown stale. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shaprut and the Khazar Correspondence
Ibn shapruts correspondence itself is a forgery-the work was "lost' and rediscovered by a Spanish jewish Printer about five hundred years ago.


 * That theory has been debunked by every scholar from Marquart and Brutzkus, through Dunlop, to Golb and Pritsak and Brook. 10th century copies were discovered in the Cairo Genizah. Get your facts straight please. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the East Slavic states
Why do we need this box on this page? It does not mention the Khazars at all. Cbdorsett 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgruntled anon
This page is being dominated by proponents of theories connecting Khazars to Judaism-this topic is abit like Ufology-but more so. The only people really interested in it are those that believe in it. Wikipedia has a policy against nonsense and yet here a highly dubious historical proposition is being presented as fact. The page should include a paragraph whereby contributors can bring counter-arguments demonstating that Jewish Khazars never existed. When all the second-hand and embellished "evidence" is stripped down very little exists to convince a serious historian that there were Judaized Khazars. Dubious theories should not be made fact for instance "Around the mid 800s burials in Khazaria began to take on a decidedly Jewish flavor. Grave goods disappeared almost altogether"-this is highly deceptive and would be well at home in Koestlers book. It suggests an agenda. No actual judaic symbols were found in the alluded graves (nor were these graves conclusively Khazar), merely the absence of weaponry-hardly proof of judaism. It should also be noted Judaism in no way forbids grave goods-another flaw in this piece of evidence. Proponents of the Khazar theory often talk of the Cairo Genizah-yet a quick perusal of the internet will quickly confirm that no works were found there to support this myth other than the famous "Shechter letter"-an obvious forgery by a Conservative Rabbi.


 * Nothing in this rant is supported by the evidence. The Schechter Letter's authenticity is not in serious dispute.`Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Khazar-face
The web is littered with references to the "Khazar face" insult by [Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople] to [Leo VI the Wise]. However, I have not been able to find a reliable affirmation of this. Does anyone know of a mention of the Khazar Face prior to the French publication of the Dictionary of the Khazars by Milorad Pavic in 1988? -Narcvs

Dunlop refers to it, and I think Barthold and Marquart as well. Milorad Pavic's book is fantasy, not history, even if it does incorporate some historical tidbits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Photius may have felt a direct and personal interest in Khazaria, for possibly he was himself of KHazar extraction. So, it seems, we might best explain the epithet "Khazar-face", applied to him once in anger by the Emperor Michael III.

--Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars, p. 194 (citing Symeon Magister, ex. Bonn, 673.) --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dipping my toe in the shark pond
I agree that this page has taken on a way-too-political slant. With all due trepidation, I've re-done the section I have renamed 'Suggested Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim,' ('Alleged' is a loaded word). I softened what looks to me like one-sided and anti-Koestler language to instead reflect an objective Wiki discussion of the controversy. I also changed anything that smacks of two genetics studies 'proving' or 'demonstrating' anything since in scientific research, findings suggest or disconfirm things but are never said to prove them. That's a very important distinction for the credibility of this article. 201.220.15.66 20:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Alan


 * Looks like they got bitten off. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Would jayjg care to share why you undid my corrected version? 201.220.15.66 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Alan
 * The studies did not equivocate the way you did, and anyone who uses the edit summary restored to corrected version to be in accord with scientific description, not the ego needs of another editor is reverted out of hand. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'Reverted out of hand'? Interesting tactic, but not one that is in the spririt or intent of Wikipedia. Anyone with an ounce of education in the sciences or experience publishing research results would never say their findings 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. To the layman, that may sound like equivocating but that's how it's done among the experts. Yet you deign to disregard my expertise and erase my correction without comment, which smacks of egotism. You of course do not 'own' this or any other entry and I have more right to correct an entry than you do to delete it 'out of hand'.
 * Feel free to try, but you won't get there by insulting other editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You insult yourself, friend, when you are obstinate and refuse to learn new things.
 * Now, having said that, because I am a tenured professor at a medical school, I feel obligated to teach you. Here is the abstract of the article you cite.  Note the wording regarding findings (I've emphasised some of them for ease):

"Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly [not solely] from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis [not prove] that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest [again, not prove] that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769 201.220.15.66 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)(Prof)Alan
 * Bernard Lewis is an eminent historian; please do not insert your personal POV regarding him in an attempt to poison the well. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR; you can be blocked for violating it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually LOL'd when I read this. Following your gate keeping of all Zionist and related articles in Wiki, I can't imagine that you've ever given your personal POV! And, as a scholar myself, 'eminence' is in the eye of the beholder.  Actually, I have no opinion whatsoever of Professor Lewis, but you should ask any Armenian member of the academy if he is controversial. Our own Wiki article gives several examples  (at least til you edit them out) and quotes the exec director of the Armenian National Committee of America as referring to Lewis as a "known genocide denier — an academic mercenary" with "politically motivated efforts to cover up the truth".  Um, yeah, I'm poisoning the well by quoting Wiki.  What makes me think you're also a big Derschowitz fan?


 * Btw, what are your thoughts on the abstract above? 201.220.15.66 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Professor Alan
 * "at least til you edit them out"; I was actually the most recent editor on the Lewis article (on June 1), so I obviously don't intend to "edit them out". Regarding the Armenian genocide, Lewis, in fact, says that up to a million Armenians were indeed "massacred", in his words. His issue is more a functionalist vs. intentionalist one. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop politicizing questions of fact vs. fallacy
Whether or not Ashkenazim are "descended from Khazars" has nothing to do with whether or in what way this fact or non-fact is or isn't "used" for good or evil purposes, including any arguments one way or another concerning Zionism. I want to know what is the evidence pro and con regarding the suggested Khazar connection, not what ad hominem statements can be thrown at those who argue one way or another from the evidence and/or for and against their own agenda.

Hell's bells! There were lots of Turkic and other folks who were "converted to Judaism" in ancient times, not just Khazars. So what?

Actually, a lot of the gene pool of the Jewish community, as in the case of other dispersed and marginalized and oppressed people, has got to be the children of of Jewish women who were raped by the Crusaders and others, because such children were not blamed for their origin and were commonly carried to term and raised as Jews. Plus, it's a mitzvah to adopt a foundling, and Jews in classical times were noted for adopting orphans of many origins; maybe that was a reaction against the Greco-Roman habit of abandoning unwanted babies, but probably just a reflection of Jewish (Judeo-Christian-Islamic, if you like) ethics. As for Jewish doctrine on the question of who is and isn't a Jew, the mainstream has always treated converts and adoptees and foundlings and their descendants as Jews, period. Falashas are black. Cochin Jews look like Cochin Brahmans. A Jewish friend of mine, whose ancestors are from Poland and were Jewish as far back as he knows of, looks to me like a Pole, period.

All authentic Jewish tradition, in its pro-Zionist and its anti-Zionist manifestations, treats them all as Jews. So does Israel's Law of Return. If you want to argue for or against the Law of Return or for or against Zionism, you have to argue on some other basis than whether Jews, or some Jews, or most Jews, or all Jews, are descended from Midle Easterners or from anybody else---it would make no difference if they were all descended from Puerto Ricans. Descendants of Chinese Jews look like other Chinese; so, according to antique travelers, did their ancestors who practiced Judaism.

Enough of this genetic interpretation of Jewishness. I'm against the Law of Return, and I think Palestine/Israel ought to be a single religion-blind and ethnicity-blind state, but my position is not based on arguments about who is descended from whom. I believe such arguments are the moral equivalent of racism, no matter which way they are applied. Tom129.93.17.229 03:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight given to role of Judaism in this article
NPOV section states that: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Other religions including Shamanism, Christianity, and Islam also played important roles in Khazar history before and after some of the Khazar nobility embraced Judaism. The opening section fails to emphasize this aspect of Khazar history. Furthermore the parts about DNA evidence should not be in this article. This is an encyclopedic article about the Khazars. Perhaps a separate article dedicated to the Khazar role in Jewish history would be a good place to provide such information.

User:Nostradamus1 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article makes clear that other religions were practiced in Khazaria. The latest scholarship suggests that Judaism was widespread, and this is one of the things the Khazars were best known for. You have presented absolutely no justification for removing the DNA evidence section, as this is a major controversy surrounding this people. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Briangotts. This article seems pretty well-balanced already.  6SJ7 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is not well balanced yet. First I'd like to ask why the NPOV tags I placed were removed in less than a day?  It clearly states that we should not do so.  I did not expect you (Briangotts) to understand the undue weight matter I raised since you are probably the one who created it in the first place.  I will put the NPOV tags back so that others can come and discuss this matter too.  Second I placed referenced information that was deleted with a comment that they were "misleading".  In what way?  Are you questioning the credibility of the souce?  I will quotee from another source.  I do not thing the article in its current form gives this perspective:
 * "The Khazar Turks who seized the Russian steppes in the 670s are best remembered because their ruling elite converted to Judaism a century later. Like many steppe peoples the Khazars were of mixed origins but their state endured longer than that of most. Even before Muslim Arabs appeared on their southern frontier the Khazars had allied themselves with Byzantium against Sassanian Iran and this traditional friendship continued after the Sassanians collapsed. The Arabs proved to be much more formidable neighbors and this clash forced the Khazars to move their Caucasus capital north to the mouth of the Volga. Originally shamanist, the Khazars almost converted to Islam following a shattered defeat by an Arab army which chased the Khazar Khagan right across the steppes into the forests of the north. Instead, however, the Khagan went back on his agreement and revived the Khazar alliance with Byzantium. A short time later the ruling elite converted to Judaism, though the number of converts remains a matter of heated debate. Others adopted Christianity or turned to Islam which most Khazars accepted after the collapse of their state in the early 11th century."


 * Mentioning that other religions were also practiced in Khazaria is not enough. It is how this information is presented that gives the balanced perspective.  Khazars did not start as followers of Judaism and they did not end as followers of Judaism.  The number of Khazars converting to Judaism is a debated matter.  Therefore stating that "the Jewish religion became widespread among the population" is POV. Most sources state that only the elite converted and the article must point to this view that is the main stream view.  Recent research or pet projects should stay out of this encyclopedia. Disputing minority views may be noted, though.  This subject apparently is used by extremists on all sides and unfortunately the immediate victim is the subject itself.  Such debates should to be taken elsewhere.  This is also not a place for original research so mitochondrial DNA or whatever has to be left to researchers. This is an encyclopedia.User:Nostradamus1 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that we know precious little about the other religions practiced in Khazaria. All of the sources agree that Judaism was the major influence from at least the early ninth century through the mid tenth. It is true that the view among early Khazar researchers (Artamanov, Dunlop et al) was that the conversion that was limited to the elite, but the current consensus based on the last five decades of archeological investigation and textual analysis is that the conversion was far more widespread, and even extended briefly to allied nations such as the Alans. Nicolle's statement is of little import because he is a non-specialist dealing with the khazars very briefly in a work that itself deals briefly with the history of nomadic armies over the course of ten centuries. The works of Pletnyeva, Golden, Brook, Kovalev, and in particular the contributors to Peter B. Golden, et al., eds. The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium (Handbook of Oriental Studies/Handbuch Der Orientalistik). Brill: 2007, are more relevant and apropos. The DNA section is well-sourced and is not original research. It reports what the researchers themselves have stated. Moreover, you are being disingenuous when you claim that the debate about the extent of the conversion is ignored- in fact it has its own section in the article. This is the appropriate place for you to include well-sourced perspectives which highlight the disagreement among scholars- not your own personal feelings on the matter. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)