Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * A fringe POV fork. This myth is already covered thoroughly in two extremely long sections in the article Khazars, in 1)Khazars and 2)Khazar'. The article's content can be found there and therefore the it is pointless. If this article isn't deleted for some reason, then these sections will have to be.
 * Important notes: The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it. When I added some criticism about this theory in the Khazars article, it was removed and eventually moved to this page, however information promoting the theory was not moved or touched. So as I said, if this article isn't deleted, these two sections discussing it will have to be cut from the Khazars article and pasted here instead. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.


 * DELETE this fork. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After further consideration I've decided I'm OK with this being split out. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP.
 * The proposer’s argument has no merit because he is totally confused, WP:AGF is violated, and he makes accusations that raise serious doubts about his editorial integrity. His assertions about how this page was created are deceptive.


 * (1) The ‘myth’ (actually it is a theory) is not ‘covered thoroughly in two extremely long sections in the article Khazars, in 1)[Khazars#Judaism] and 2)[Khazar#Ashkenazi-Khazar].' This article's content cannot be found there and therefore the proposal is pointless and false.
 * (2) The section of the Khazar page on Khazar Judaism does not mention the myth/theory, except for the briefest note reading at the end:'A popular, if in academic terms minoritarian, thesis holds that the Khazar Jewish population went into a northern diaspora and had a significant impact on the rise of Ashkenazi Jews.' That 'minoritarian' adjective means that academically, this is not taken seriously. Curious readers will come to this page to find out the details.
 * (3) The section of the Khazar page on the theory of a link between them and the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi_Khazar theories) is a minimalist account of the history of the controversy, and of recent genetic research, which is overwhelmingly sceptical of such a link.
 * (4) This article was hived off from one singularly bad pastiche of newspaper comments made by Shalom11111, who inserted it into the Khazar article, without justifying his edit on the talk page. Note that the Khazar page has a standard templat, which Yamabaram’s stuffing ignored. He took no trouble to justify his massive expansion, but, with a handful of others, edit-warred, one aim being to tip the article over the limits so that it would have to be split, destroying its formal, aesthetic and narrative integrity.
 * (5)He had some backing,- not by experienced or constructive editors however, but after his disruptive edit (9kb of poor text into a 150kb text that is at the limit of article length) this was discussed and editors not given over to POV battles decided that it was inappropriate and destabilizing. This page was created in order to allow editors like Shalom11111 ample scope (and much can be written) to cover all aspects of the controversy and amass the extra critical detail. He has not deigned to improve this article. I had had to do the basic legwork. There is a huge amount of material that could be added to this. Half of the article here is Shalom11111's own work, which he prefers to fix into the Ashkenazi Jews page, where it violates WP:Undue. The Ashkenazi are not Khazars, which is a fringe theory.
 * (6) Shalom11111 accuses me of spreading a ‘belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews")’ here and elsewhere on wikipedia. This is an extremely serious sign of bad faith, and malicious misrepresentation. He has no diff to prove his contention, which constitues a violent personal attack on me, insinuating my work is motivated by antisemitism. If this charge is repeated, I will report him for a ban on this and related topics.
 * (7) This diff is adduced to insinuate an extraordinary idea, that I am arguing ‘Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews". Where is that stated? Jews are Jews – I don’t even know what a ‘fake Jew’ is? That the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews are unknown does not mean they are ‘fake’. It means that historians are puzzled by the question: e.g. to cite one of numerous sources that say what Shalom11111 thinks is scandalous:
 * "'Was the great Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century preponderantly descended (as is normally believed) from immigrants from the Germanic lands further west who arrived as refugees in the later Middle Ages, bearing with them their culture? Or did these new immigrants find already on their arrival a numerically strong Jewish life, on whom they were able to impose their superior culture, including even their long (a phenomenon not unknown at other times and places – as for example in the 16 century, after the arrival of the highly cultured Spanish exiles in the Turkish Empire)?) Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasi autochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which will probably never been solved Cecil Roth in Cecil Roth, I. H. Levine,The World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe, 711-1096, Volume 11, Jewish historical publications, 1966 pp.302-303 p.303."
 * There is a huge literature on the difficulties in their modern numbers compared to the exiguous populations attested for the Middle Ages throughout Europe, and in demography the 'expansion' is considered 'miraculous'. Some think conversion played an important role. These are all theories, and no one knows. In any case, a convert is not a fake, even if this is the only premise one is forced to assume from Shalom11111’s extraordinary claim here. And please note that all this, unlike Shalom11111's contention in the link used above, has nothing to do with the Khazars, whom I do not mention in that link.


 * In short Shalom11111 has made a proposal that completely confounds the issues, just as his edits completely mess up pages that strive to be neutral, comprehensive, and to hew to very strict standards of scholarly reportage and source quality.


 * Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I haven't a clue how the theory could be used by anti-Semites, but such vile misuse should be dealt with directly, not by suppressing discussion of the questionable validity of an interesting theory, about which Arthur Koestler wrote a whole book. The two articles about Khazars mentioned concentrate on Khazars, not European Jews, so it is a very different emphasis.  cwmacdougall 0:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a fork. It does have titling problems. Extensive coverage of the topic shown in footnotes. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Proposer's argument is absurd and offensive. However, somewhere (not on this AFD board), the future of the article needs discussing.  We don't normally make subarticles so it ought to be moved to the top level if the content is going to remain separate. Zerotalk 07:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both the Ashkenazi Jews and Khazar article have been consistently destabilized by POV-editing on the issue of origins (by editors who appear to be disinterested in both topics. Controversy seduces. User:Shalom11111 (and User:Tritomex) want each page to 'prove' that 'science' knows all Ashkenazi are direct descendents of the Israelites. That is why a main page on the topic was created: they, others, and indeed myself, can examine and document every nook and cranny of this minor theory (much stability was created for Shakespeare articles by getting the proponents of Edward de Vere, Oxfordian theory to work specific pages). I calculate at a minimum that a fair survey of the history, its exponents, and the documentation (genetics) would run to 60/70kb. I'll certaintly get round to doing much of this. I am surprised that Shalom11111, who started this by creating a section headed 'Expansion needed', refuses to work the page now that he has all the room imaginable to thicken the text here.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  Delete I did not "went there" to prove anything  but to try to create an objective article from the POV pushing carried out there by Nishidani who is censoring  all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.)He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of Jewish people and Ashkenazi Jews --Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have just taken Shalom11111 to A/I for making false and injurious accusations. I suggest you either document these absurd charges or strike them out. In all the articles mentioned, I added relevant scholarly input, irrespective of the POV pushing, and have never removed, on principle, any good RS from wikipedia. I only add academic works to such articles, and you, Tritomex, consistently remove them, whatever their standing as reliable sources. That is the difference. Wikipedia is obligatorily bound to cover all relevant views. It does not promote a preferred slant on anything. That's policy. Read it.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Link: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826 --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a notable theory and should have an own article. If it's about how antisemites and others can view an article, then we would have to remove articles such as Genetic studies on Arabs who only talk about genetic diseases in Arabs. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - It's a theory that should have its own article. Although it's terribly made, that has more to do with your effort to delete it rather than improve it. This article is a great idea considering how peaceful the Khazars page is compared to before. On another note, Shalom11111 should understand how crucial it is to keep POV-pushers such as himself from the Khazars article. As long as he lurks there, that page will never be a good/featured article. Khazar (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a very clearly notable theory. I'm surprised it has taken so long to have its own "stand alone" article. The subject has been widely debated ever since the publication of Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe. Has this theory been used by antisemites? Yes, but usually in the context of Biblical-literalist claims that Jews have a "right" to Israel by descent from Abraham (and thus no 'right' if they aren't his descendents). Koestler's own intention was to prove that Jews are not a "race", but a religious community, and thus to undermine antisemitism. But all this is beside the point. Wikipedia policy is clear. It is undeniably a notable topic, widely discussed in reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep With papers being published fairly recently in succession by noted scholars, some supporting some refuting the theory, it obviously meets the notability criteria.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per cwmacdougall, Carrite, Paul B., et al. If we deleted everything that the haters could use, there would be little left here.  We have lots of articles at WP:ODD and as allowed by WP:FRINGE.  I think the article does a fairly good job of neutrality. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This theory is not inherently anti-semitic, therefore no reason to delete. Concur with Bearian. Bensci54 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.