Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 19 July 2013

Khazaria.com was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Khazars. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Mid‑importance Khazars is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Religion / Demographics & ethnography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Norse history and culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Khazars was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 10, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 24, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Joey Kurtzman (November 16 2006). "Wiki Wars". Jewcy. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Removed material

I removed this blob of poorly sourced material, and rewritten the whole section to replace it. If anyone can see stuff here that, once referred to in high quality sources, has been omitted, please add it.

Additionally, please de not bring back the "Theories linking Jews to Khazars today" that I just cut - it was a useless (if well-documented) subjective rant which objective was to link those who believe in the "jewish/Khazar" theory to gullible idiots and/or nazis, against the rest of the article's more rational passages, which basically says that few things can be proved either way. There are some concerns on this very page about the section in question, all saying the same thing. What I cut was superfluous content - all the rational arguments against the theory were left intact. I could have objectively cut much more, but limited myself to the obvious feces-pelting. Please keep it civil; This is a scholarly place.MVictorP (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It is not subjective. 2. it is not a rant. 3. it is well documented. 4. such opinions are very common among the pro-Palestinian and antisemitic crowds. 5. it stays.--Galassi (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1: It is subjective in the face of the rest of the article, which is more objective. 2: It is a rant, where the author autorize himself to a subjective analysis of books that would be better left in their own articles, for, you know, intelligent people to decide. 3: So what? I can put a section about strawberries in there, overly sourced and yet that wouldn't make it relevant, or even objective. Sources in this case just denotes obsessiveness of their authors' part. 4: The fact they any, most or all of them hold any opinion do not make these opinions exclusives to them. What you are brandishing is a known fallacy. We are not fooled. 5: I don't think so. Is this an issue for you? In any case, I would like you to develop your argumentation beyond laconicity which have the appearance of finality - It isn't as impressive as you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)MVictorP (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on this article were done based on WP:OR, WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS The well sourced material and contribution of other editors can not be censored based on "So what?" logic. You must have policy based arguments while arguments held by respective scholars are considered WP:RS, while your personal explorations of the objectivity of those authors represent WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem so bent on rules, or rather their interpretation, let me take the chance and ask you: Is "so what" (that was followed by the reasons, BTW) more or less of an argument than "no it is not"? You would be well-advised to revise your rethorics. Now give me some reasons why this section should stay other than "it has lots of sources attached to it", because, finally, that's what we're talking about here, are we not, no matter the thickness of ruling that you attempt to slap on it. Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. It is not upon editors to describe reliable sources as "subjective" or to censor them. The parts you removed, contrary to some other parts (which by WP policy can not stand) is well sourced. You must have scholarly based academic sources to back/refute/remove this section. The current form of this article, although not ideal, is result of numerous previous discussions and the sections you removed are very much related to this article---Tritomex (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you are avoiding a direct discussion. Well then, please familiarize yourself with WP:POV - because that's what it is about, not the questionable interpretations you gave it. And I do have "scholarly based academic sources" to remove the section: They are all over the same article (I could list them to you if you neede help), and tell, without any debate, that the Khazar nobility conversed towards the Jewish faith at some point - what is disputed is the extent of that conversion, and it is disputed because evidences favor neither side to this day. That is objective. The section in litigation here denies any intellectual honesty to one side of the debate. I just can't understand why it wasn't removed before (and it fact it did - it is a de facto disputed section). Finally, Misplaced Pages isn't set in stone, and its articles can evolve in time. Thank you for your time - but I must warn you, in all rspects, that I intent to undo the undo etc, in time, for the aformentionned reasons, until I consider it on par to Misplaced Pages's high standards- it's not vandalism: it's restauration, and I intend to do it while abiding by all WP rules.MVictorP (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You dont have any sources, yet you wish to invalidate reliable sources telling the opposite from what you feel. Bernard Lewis, one of the most cited historian, as well as others described this theory. as Antisemitic. Your claim that this theory has equal academic support with "the other side" is simply incorrect. All mainstream historians of Khazar like Bernard Lewis, Moshe Gil or Dunlop considered it as pseudoscientific. Yet even it would be not, that those not mean that you can remove whole sections of long standing material which is well sourced based on your unsourced feelings.--Tritomex (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

From the article: The date of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, and whether it occurred as one event or as a sequence of events over time, is widely disputed. The issues surrounding this controversy are discussed above. The number of Khazars who converted to Judaism is also hotly contested, with historical accounts ranging from claims that only the King and his retainers had embraced Judaism, to the claim that the majority of the lay population had converted. D.M. Dunlop was of the opinion that only the upper class converted. Analysis of recent archaeological grave evidence by such scholars as Kevin A. Brook asserts that the sudden shift in burial customs, with the abandonment of pagan-style burial with grave goods and the adoption of simple shroud burials during the mid-9th century suggests a more widespread conversion. A mainstream scholarly consensus does not yet exist regarding the extent of the conversions.

Like I've wrote, the litigious section was POV and UNDUE. An objective author would have taken the time to look on both sides of the debate. What I did was minimal; The whole article is stuffed with conotative gems - it could be a collegial study on the matter. Expect some additional revisions, soon. Thanks for your time etc. MVictorP (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What you quoted is additional unsourced material and unsourced material has no place in Misplaced Pages (Beside Dunlop). With unsourced claims you cant justify your POV: Based on what you consider your POV more important than well sourced scholarly work? How can the most important question why anyone would visit this page to be considered UNDUE. Again, you can not remove material based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just because you fell it is POV while you refuse to present any academic evidence to justify your claims. Misplaced Pages is based on sources and not personal views.--Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest reading; The part I quoted is not only sourced, but it also happens to be written without bias - because sources are one thing, the way one uses them is another. I didn't remove any material based on IDONTLIKEIT; once again, it is based on POV and UNDUE - but if you were unable to read it the first three or four times, I don't expect this one to have more success.70.30.193.227 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)70.30.193.227 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First you are using at least two accounts to edit this page, which is against Misplaced Pages rules and may lead to block, second the claims you underlined are not sourced. Third Misplaced Pages is not source for Misplaced Pages editing. I already asked you to familiarize yourself with WP rules before trying to make such significant changes.--Tritomex (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It was sourced, of course (ref number 119) - and in this case, the author presented both sides of the debates instead of favoring only one side (and one source) and cook a biased POV around it. Contrarly to the litigious section, the quoted part isn't subjective, and respects all sides. I don't appreciate that you use Misplaced Pages and alienation of opinions as your own political tool, and I am not alone. Please promote Hasbara somewhere else, and while you are at it, study the articles on POV, UNDUE and CONSENSUS, focusing on the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. Also check out the FIVE PILLARS of Misplaced Pages and, particularly the first two. As for my account, I only got one, but it just happens that I forget to sign here and there (I am working on that). I have no contact whatsoever with the many accounts that appear to have a likewise opinion - but if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it to the admin.MVictorP (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I was absent for few days and I am really surprised how against many Misplaced Pages rules, this continues removal of long standing already discussed material by recently created account is standing, manly due to different interventions.

Especially this is said if we know that numerous sockpuppets did the same removals and edits on this page. First of all you have no right to call me Hasabra activist and if you have your own problem with antisemitism, Misplaced Pages is not place for dealing with it. Second the book you referred is not reliable source, because K.A.Brook is not a historian, has no any academic expertise from history. He is a business administrator- without any education from history therfore unreliable for historic claims.. Misplaced Pages uses quality academic sources and not sources without any academic BG. Even this sources is written without any page or any specific references. This all in contrast with highly respected experts and historians whose material was simply removed based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR, with explanation that this was not in line with unsourced quotes of unreliable book, although even this unreliable book does not claim what MVictorP claims, namely that Khazar theory is not used in modern Antisemitism. You are always free to add your PROPERLY sourced material WITHOUT removing sourced material. Or if you want to remove sourced material, present academic sources backing your claims (namely that Khazar theory is not used in Antisemitism) together with policy based arguments why this material should not be presented as by WP:NPOV in my opinion it has its place here.--Tritomex (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On Kevin Alan Brooks (from his book, "The Jews of Khazaria")

"Kevin Alan Brook is a historian who has researched the Khazars since 1993. He has contributed articles to the Encyclopaedia of Judaism, second edition (Brill, 2005) and The Turks, vol I (Yeni Turkiye, 2002). Since 1995, Brooks has maintained the website of the American Center of Khazar Studies"

And what about Elhaik? You know what? I too can pelt feces - at Lewis, in particular, a biaised zionist supporter, an antiquated researcher and a denier of the Armenian genocide. But I won't. Why? Because it isn't what I, as a WP editor, is supposed to do: It would range from POV to IDONTLIKEIT from my part to do that. I can say that it isn't your role neither: You job, as far as being as WP editor is concerned, is to honestly present the article's subject as it stands, with all significant sides involved. But that isn't what you do - you deny one side credibility by the way of alienation. That, my friend, stinks like the methods used by these CAMERA activists, hence my accusation. I fight CAMERA-like warfare, not out of some hatred for Jews/Israel, but for their bullying, anti-academic methods that laugh in the face of the spirit of true reporting.

The in-article zionist/anti-zionist debate is not desired. If we can simply accept the fact that not all Rhineland Hypothesis supporters are zionists, and that not all Khazarian Hypothesis are anti-zionists, we could get rid of this omnipresent debate as far as the article is concerned. Your request for me to "prove" that the Khazarian Hypothesis isn't used by extremist groups is irrelevant - Isn't Elhaik a Jew/Israeli anyway?

I suggest that not only you learn a bit on Brooks and Elhaik (please don't pretend that you do), but that you write the needed counterpart to the deleted section yourself, using their work. I bet you will come out of it a more informed, credible man.MVictorP (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said K. A.Brook is a business administrator ] without any education from historic field. it was already discussed here and on other places, see archives, and references from his book were changed to reliable sources. Historic claims can not be written in Misplaced Pages from someone who has no any expertise from history and who is undoubtedly unreliable. Beyond this even the claims you made are referred generally to his novel without specifying any page or any specific references. The claim that Khazar theory is not associated with Antisemitism does not exist even in this book. The current situation where reliable sources are replaced with non existing quotations from unreliable book written by unknown person without any expertise made this page tragically poor, low quality POV pushing and self narration.This situation can not stand. K.A.Brook novel by WP:RS has nothing to do in Misplaced Pages. There are clear rules what RS is. However, even if there would be reliable sources stating the same as K.A.B, that does not mean that other reliable sources should be disqualified because they are not "in line".--Tritomex (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even the link you gave me confirms Brooks as an historian. Your argumentation can be summerized as IDONTLIKEIT. I never denied that antisemites and the such do use researches from un-associated people, I question its relevance in the article, apart to retro-actively discredit said people by the way of unrequited association.

Oh, and please continue to ignore Elhaik - I assure you that its completely fooling me. MVictorP (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

K.A. Brook is an amateur historian, like me, without formal education and without any academic expertise for HISTORY. If you have any doubts or sources claiming otherwise, you are free to present it. Misplaced Pages does not use amateur historians or self published articles but relays on academic experts and scholars with formal education from each fields. K.A.B is maybe an expert for business development, certainly not for Khazar history. Certainly I do not ignore Elhaik, there are dozens of genetic studies and academic books from population genetics to which I am very much familiar. I do not mix history and population genetics. This article has to be cleaned from unreliable sources and unsourced claims, and this is true not just for this article.--Tritomex (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough - Brooks is a credible historian, with verifiable referencials and published works. The fact that he has other studies does not impedes on his credibility. He seems to be an expert on the matter of Khazars, and even an authority. Sizeable parts of the article are from his sources.

Besides, one does not need to be formally educated in one specific field to be sourced as "reliable": personal experience or interest are just as relevant as formal education - and maybe more.MVictorP (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is one of the sections of this article not a bit offensive?

If we look at this section, isn't it basically associating everyone who still believes in a specific theory with being anti Zionist or anti Semitic? I am by no means wanting to argue for the Khazar theory but isn't this clearly wrong, and hence quite potentially offensive and misleading?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

About the recent edit war, I agree with what Andrew Lancaster wrote earlier this month. I do not want to argue for the Khazar theory, as I don't believe in it, but the section that MVictorP has been removing is clearly POV and not encyclopedic for the reasons Andrew Lancaster give above. The main aim of the section seems to be to 'discredit by default' anyone believing in the Khazar-theory by saying that they are anti-semites. That is a very strong claim, and not justified based on my reading of the (poorly written) section. I do not believe in the Khazar-theory, but the way to present that is to present the scientific findings in a dispassionate way, not resorting to blaming anyone who doesn't agree of being an anti-semite.Jeppiz (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The theory has an interesting history, that simply can't be swept under the rug by an obsessive worry about political 'fall-out'. Unfortunately this is one of a large number of articles where sensitivities to politics are more acute than curiosity about the historical geneaology and scholarship on, a theory. I don't think we should 'believe' anything, at least in terms of scholarship. There are fringe ideas, and there are scholarly controversies: the former are boring, the latter fascinating. All we get really are adjustments of perspective, an informed scepticism about the pitfalls of self-assurance, and, incrementally, a little knowledge of what are the less improbable lines of interpretation given the available facts. There's not enough evidence here to be dismissive either way. There is a considerable amount of argument that serious scholars still regard the idea as a valid object of investigation, and transcribing these arguments should not entail hysteria about implications. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Overreliance on Lewis

I see that a section based on Lewis is being added and removed by various editors. To me, the section looks like WP:UNDUE emphasis on Lewis. Please discuss why or why not Lewis deserves to be a lone voice of mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Huge sections (the Jewish-related one in particular) of the article still carry known conotation techniques, and its structure is a mess. The edit you made was a minimum, and maybe, the start of something bigger.MVictorP (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

While I am not defending the substance of the section removed, the proper protocol would have been to have this discussion *before* removing the material. Go back into the archives and you will see that the "litigated" area has been contested to the point of the page being blocked at times. At least the page had become stable before this new dust up. I suggest a proposal be made on how to deal with this area, *then* removing or changing the text. Otherwise you will be fighting this edit war daily. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not the edit warring which is occurring here. The material should be discussed before any more efforts at insertion. The burden is on the editor who wishes to include text, not the editor who removes text. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The text was already included after discussion. It was removed without discussion, then this new round of warring began. It would be far more constructive if a proposal to deal with the contested language is discussed -- as was done with the reorganization of the history section and intro a few months ago. Otherwise prepare to be re-doing these reversions repeatedly because that has been the history of the section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposition About the "Ashkenazi-Khazar" Hypothesis

This is a rough I propose in place of the section I removed, which was "Theories Linking Jews to Khazars Today". If no one actually does it, I might attempt to do it myself but I am a newb still.

First, title the replacement section something like "Debate on Khazarian Links to Ashkenazi Jews". Paste the old section's sourced "Rhineland Hypothesis" (if nobody objects the newish term), and balance it with a new "Khazarian hypothesis" held, noticably, by modern researchers like Eran Elhaik and Kevin Brooks. This section should be ideally close to the one about "Date and Extent of the Conversion". References and accusation to interested parties supporting/fighting one of the theories (zionists, antisemites etc) should be kept to a minimum.

Ideally, there should then be a link to another WP article about the debate, which would diminish the main article in size and somehow allevate it. I would be eager to know what the opposants to the deletion would think regarding this - Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a debate article would be a good addition to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I left this article a third way through my review of the page because of unremitting edit-warring and tediously obstructive discussion, and I see it has returned. I checked just one source cited on the page, under anti-semitism, and found that the text pasted in only material apposite to the POV that the Khazar hypothesis is historically regarded as antisemitic. The actual source unambiguously states the opposite. After the correction, Tritomex, as is his habit, immediately reverted the correction, evidently without controlling the source (one by the way that he has never challenged). The insistance by some editors that wikipedia should condemn the hypothesis as antisemitic violates NPOV. It's easy to fix: the academic literature on this is extensive: the hypothesis was entertained by notable Israeli scholars: Bernard Lewis, as I have often noted, was not abreast of the latest research, and his facile obiter dictum from the earlier 80s is given undue weight. Until the erratic abuse of editing privileges stops, it will be rather a waste of time to do that section. I expect it will be written only after some of evidence for mindless reverting is compiled for an A/I report.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think WP needs debate articles? Anyway I think all the comments about over-reliance on Lewis are clearly correct. WP should not be saying that everyone who believes this theory is anti-semitic. To me that is verging on a BLP problem, because it is clearly a very strong accusation about identifiable living people, some of whom are Jewish, but in any case it is certainly an NPOV problem. And we need not be trying to frame this discussion in terms of all Lewis or no Lewis! NPOV is clear: we do not need to write a new debate (that would be original work). We just need to summarise the two sides of debate which exist in publications. If everyone would just allow that...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge literature regarding association of Khazar theory promoters and Antisemitism from highly respected academic sources. If it would be only Bernard Lewis, it would be enough but he is not the only one.This view is also held by ADL and numerous Jewish and Israeli organizations and academic historians like Moshe Gil, Ben Sasson etc. It is well known that Khazar Theory has been promoted by different Antisemitc and racist organizations and that is widely used in context of Arab-Israeli conflict to deny the rights of Jewish people to Israel. Still I did not find any material denying this, nor I have seen any material claiming that Khazar Theory is not associated with this phenomenon too. This does not mean that there are no people outside Antisemitic spectrum who are believing in Khazar Theory, nor did the text claimed that. It just pointed out to clear connection and popularity of this idea (which is btw rejected by almost all mainstream historians, contrary to the picture artificially created here in this article) among specific ideological groups--Tritomex (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Quote discussed bellow:

"The Khazar theory still enjoys some popularity, but it has been accused of mainly being associated with anti-Zionists and antisemites. Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. Prominent historian Bernard Lewis, has stated: This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.</blockquote"Btw Bernard Lewis was never an "Israeli" scholar but is considered one of the most important British and global oriental historian who enjoys enormous respect in Arab and Islamic world too. What changes you propose?--Tritomex (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Theories aren't 'accused', people are.
• Lewis and Harkabi were writing 30 years ago, by the way (Well actually Harkabi's essay came out in Hebrew in the late 1960s ('Arab Antisemitism' in Shmuel Ettinger, Continuity and Discontinuity in Antisemitism, (Hebrew) 1968 p.50), and was basically using that example to argue that the Arab world had become the centre of antisemitism. Note the date just after the Six Day War)
• Lewis is a "prominent" scholar, as Jimmy Carter is a "prominent" politician.
• There is no doubt that the Khazar theory has had support from anti-Zionists. What's missing is that it enjoyed strong support from Zionists too.

The whole thing is just clumsy. What we should be doing is writing the history of the idea, its ups and downs in scholarship over the decades, and leave the 'political readings' to a later moment, once the general outline of the theory's actual development is clarified. Start with a political anxiety, and we'll get nowhere. I suggest we can work this out directly on this page, before editing anything in.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis, as educated as he is, is a known zionist, therefore an interested party in the debate - and he didn't gave much against the Khazarian Hypothesis beside well-felt disdain. I am not saying we should rule him out as a credible source for that, but I insist he must be counterbalanced (ideally by Elhaik) in the remade section. Lewis alone just won't do.MVictorP (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But now after thinking about it, I would rather oppose to Elhaik's findings the Ashkenazi DNA tests, rather than Lewis' pontificating rebuttal. More rational. MVictorP (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The using of term "Zionist" for Bernard Lewis is laughable. He is one of greatest scholar of Islam and Middle East and he was never engaged in any political party, while he made more on building bridges between Islamic world and West than anyone (from his field). If Zionism means the acceptance of Israeli existence than the whole world beyond Islamic countries are Zionist and every single scholar on this line should be excluded.

What is obvious, is however that I heard the same argument from all 4 sockpuppets (of historic lover, I forgot the name of his other accounts) caught on this page aimed to bring the same changes during the years. Concerning Nishadani views: Politicians can be prominent, however prominent historian means well educated, objective, reliable and widely cited. Bernard Lewis is considered to be one of the most cited academic historian. I agree with the rephrasing of term "accused of" and I propose the term "associated with" Whatever is missing, can be added through reliable sources. --Tritomex (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't give much attention to the conspiracy theory you are putting forth to explain edits - I'd rather attribute them on common sense and objectivity. Second, Lewis is polemical, to say the least. I don't believe he achieves the unshakeable credibility you attribute him, and he has proven able to be (very) wrong, due to his political choices (because he has a political career as well). Finally, Lewis' contribution to the Rhineland/Khazarian Hypothesises is dated, minimal and POV. What about my suggestion that you write the deleted section's counterpart? MVictorP (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please let's avoid distractions. This talkpage has seen enough of that. It does not matter what we think of Lewis. WP is clear he is an RS, but equally clear that we should not rely on one source when there are differences of opinion between sources (WP:NPOV). WP is also very clear that we should not make controversial statements about living people in the name of WP. Lewis' opinion about some things is more notable than about other things. His opinion about everyone who agrees with this theory being anti-Semitic is not something we need to be supporting because it is an extreme opinion. Policy is basically telling us the solutions to all these "dilemmas" and all we need to do is follow it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

From a Rhineland Hypothesis' supporter point of view, I'd be better served opposing to Elhaik research the DNA researches done on Ashkenazis rather than what appears to be Lewis' personal feelings. What about you, Tritomex? MVictorP (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The question of how much emphasis we should give to genetic studies in this particular article is one that has been discussed at length here, and it is in my mind separate from the most urgent points needing consideration in the above discussion. But I would say that I think it would be inappropriate for this article to rely on genetic studies only, for either position. And secondly, if we use genetic studies for one side of the argument we should also cite any genetic studies which take a different position, and there are several different genetic studies that make remarks on this matter. So it could get messy if we try to go into too much detail that is already handled in other WP articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, hard to neny, the whole article is something of a mess, with redundency and contradictions. If we are to talk about genetics, the subject should be in one sole section, named as such, and where all other significant reference in the articles would be displaced, or dropped if redundant. On the debate itself, as of yet I don't see no other page where it could be linked, this is looking quite like the place I would put it in. However, I would not extent the genetic debate to a zionist/antizionist one, as there are many, many other pages where it is waged, that could links to this one. MVictorP (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Elahik has been debated here and in other places numerous times and I do not wish to return to those debate. Elahik btw considered Georgians and Armenians "Proto-Khazars" meaning original Khazars (which is not mentioned here) Beyond Elhaik, there are 23 other genetic studies which came to opposite conclusion than Elhaik. While Elhaik analysis used innovative techniques and samples from another studies, there are studies like Atzmon and all, which used samples from thousands of people and tens of thousands of loci and which were published by the National Academy of Science. However, here we are not speaking about genetics, we are speaking about history, to be precise we are speaking about a quote from famous historian which has no policy based argument to be banned from this page. Your personal description of Bernard Lewis "feelings" is unacceptable from academic point of view. He is not speaking about himself or his feelings but about a historic phenomenon to which he is considered to be an expert.---Tritomex (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to make original research about "feelings" of different academic experts, nor to criticize them or to like/dislike them. They are the experts and our personal views about them are restricted to establishing wetter they are reliable or not. If Bernard Lewis is reliable, by the WP:NPOV his views on this subject can not be censored. If there are other experts, claiming the opposite, again by WP:NPOV, they should be mentioned too.--Tritomex (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as educated and renowned as he might be, Lewis's opinion is quite thin in substance. It's looking more like a random remark than a devoted study on the matter from his part. Lewis should have no more than a mention as either an opponent of the Khazarian Hypothesis or a supporter of the Rhineland Hypothesis. Solely because he is well-known.

Now, Elhaik's findings are no more nor less polemic than all other serious studies on the matter (including the Ashkenazi DNA methodology, denounced in Elhaik's works). These works are discussed, that's how things evolve. Our work, as WP editor, is to represent this evolution of the debate, not judge the parties implied. Conclusions are not for us to write.MVictorP (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You must understand that this is not place for genetic studies debate. I am very much familiar with population genetics, yet I do not want to drag myself into something irrelevant to this question. The existence of Khazarian hypothesis in scientific circles is highly questionable as all historians beyond one (same with geneticists) do not agree that this hypothesis has any historic validation. I red recently a very good article from historian Moshe Gil on this subjct] Based on what proof you qualify Levis writings as "random remarks" ? Everything written or said by scholars with enormous reputation can be downgraded to "remarks", but this is not how WP works.Its not upon us, editors, to downgrade or judge their work. Even if this would be a remark, that does not disqualify it as per WP policy from being mentioned in this article, nor there is policy based argument to censor it.--Tritomex (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased proposal:

The Khazar theory still enjoys some popularity, but it has been associated also with anti-Zionists and antisemites. Such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. Regarding Khazar theory, Bernard Lewis, has stated:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.

If there are no policy based arguments against this proposal I will add this form tomorrow, If there are proposals for specific changes, I am ready to listen.--Tritomex (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal, for the following reasons: - Still accusations of antisemitism and the such are present, long after they've been debunked as subjective and noxious to an honest debate. If the article was about anti-semitism, I wouldn't mind reading that many antisemites have espoused Khazarian Hypothesises, but in this article it is frivolous, and even offensive. If I were a reasearcher who'd disagree with you, I wouldn't like to see you associate me with hatred groups whith whom I had no contact. - A counterbalanced opinion is still lacking. - The quoted text express opinions of biaised authors rather than the tangible results of specific research work or document. If we are to endure these, they should be quoted after a given hypothesis is explained (as supporters or detractors), and then given balance by an opposed opinion. There are many more than you are willing to admit (Oxford's Elhaik's peers, Ernst Mayr, Jerry Coyne, Shlomo Sand, Danielle Venton etc.MVictorP (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What Ernst Mayr,Jerry Coyne or Danielle Venton have to do with Antisemitism or Khazars? The current form do not associate all who believes in Khazar theory with Antisemitism but points out to the reasons why some Antizionists and Antisemities promotes this theory. You did not show any material, document or policy based argument that Lewis is biased and your continues labeling of him is something which is incorrect if not against WP rules.Btw all mainstream historians are on same position like him.

If you do not come out with references and policy based argument you will not be able based on WP:IDONTHEAR IT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR to censor a reliable source which btw explains something that is well known to all of us and has high importance in this subject. I will wait for additional day in order to hear suggestions from others. I am open to all constructive suggestions.--Tritomex (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just tell me why we should care about zionism or any political bent on a page that we all want scientific and neutral. I don't see what a zionist/anti-zionist debate does here (and even less a one-sided one), as these political opinions are always in the way of facts, as you demonstrated. Reposition you zionist/anti-zionist axis for a Rhineland/Khazarian one.

P.S.: Danielle Venton did a paper on Elhaik's finding, and would be acceptable as a second source over Elhaik's work, as suggested by WP guidelines.MVictorP (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we cut the chat, and sketch what the section needs? Look, the problem isn't with putting in Bernard Lewis's statement, made in the mid 80s. As I have informed you several times, Khazar studies have made great strides since then, and Lewis is not an authority on them. Since he wrote, scholars like Paul Wexler in linguistics, and Eran Elhaik in genetics, have revived it in a variety of forms. Shlomo Sand has written a history, partisan but still highly informative, of the vicissutdes of the theory in Jewish, and Israeli historiography. (Bruno Kreisky was not a scholar: but as an Austrian, like the Hungarian Arthur Koestler, he was in a position to read the Zeitgeist and antisemitism, and when both espoused the idea of the Khazar-Ashkenazi link, they didn't think they were encouraging antisemites. The other three scholars are all Israelis, all Jewish, and have no problem with working on the hypothesis either. This is two decades after Lewis's statement. To, as you are endeavouring here, push Lewis as the last word on the subject is POV-pushing, selective use of sources, a violation of WP:Undue and many other things. I have already entered the datum (which you tried immediately to revert, that it has a very minor role historically in antisemitism. It should be noted that Eric L. Goldstein,The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, Princeton University Press ‎2006 p.131 says the theory was brought to America by Maurice Fishberg in 1911, and there, as our sources note, it was taken up by the usual lunatic antisemitic fringe. It is accepted that Lewis passes muster for the cute little quote, but the section in which it will be placed shall deal predominantly with the history of the hypothesis, its development in Israel and elsewhere, the fact that East European Jewish scholars like Schipper who argued for the theory were attacked by antisemitic Poles and Russians for the presumption of being an ancient people in their land; the reception of Koestler's work (who advanced the hypothesis to cut the ground from antisemitism); its recent revival in linguistics, historiography, and genetics. And it will be noted that it also has had a certain vogue among antisemites (and Zionists). Your stub doesn't pass muster. Stormfront and other lunatic outlets are not taken seriously: Ernest Renan,the Russian-Jewish anthropologist Samuel Weissenberg, H. Kuschera, Yitzhak Schipper (who used Khazaria as a model for a future Zionist state), Abraham N. Poliak, Raphael Patai, Koestler, Wexler, Sand, Elhaik and several others have to be, even if it is a minority opinion. All this has to be cut back to a paragraph, or two brief paragraphs, the Lewis quote needs to be précised in a paraphrase and the text can go into a note. No one in it should be judged or boosted or deplored.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can insure you that Samuel Weissenberg (race researcher), Abraham Poliak to whom I am very much familiar never advocated the so called Khazar theory. Even before I saw Elhaik references to Poliak, I carefully red his books and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material. I am almost also sure that the same goes for Patai, concerning Yitzhak Schipper I never heard anything about a person with such name. The conversion of Khazar nobility, which is today accepted by many historians do not equals and has nothing in common with this theory itself. Undoubtedly as Moshe Gil explains the Khazarian Jewish State fiction was part of Jewish mythology, mostly existing as substitution for the lack of Jewish sovereignty during centuries.

However Nishadani, to avoid endless discussion on this topic I suggest you to come out with concrete proposal regarding the removed sections we have discussed. Please give us your proposal or correct mine.--Tritomex (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even before I saw Elhaik references to Poliak, (a) I carefully red his books' and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material. I am almost also sure that the same goes for Patai, concerning Yitzhak Schipper I never heard anything about a person with such name.

• Which books of Poliak did you read? You've never read Patai. You haven't heard of Schipper?Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani, . I have red many books from Patai, mostly unrelated to this subject, although I red " The myth of Jewish race". Concerning Poliak I have the "The Khazars" and "The Khazar conversion to Judaism", thanks to my friends from Hebrew university of Jerusalem which sent me together with dozens of other books this translated copy.

Returning to the subject of discussion. Currently I red Israel Bartal and Anita Shapira on the same subject and I have found many interesting quotes which are missed from this article. The same goes for Moshe Gil I will restore the valid and well sourced quote adding exact date. I have nothing against adding other sourced material as I myself have a plenty of material from Shapira, Bartal and Gil without having time to edit it.--Tritomex (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Which Hebrew edition of Poliak's book did you read? The 1944 or the 1951? It's important because you are asserting that there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ in any of Poliak material, so before I correct you I wish to be absolutely clear we are referring to the same object. (Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not speak Hebrew (although I started to learn Hebrew and Arabic), I revived from HUJ, his translated books typed on a typewriter, together with 20 books related to this (and other) issues.. I don't know exactly when it was published as they are not original books.I can send you a copy through post mail if you are interested.--Tritomex (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To be precise and not to mix terminology when I speak about Khazar theory, I SOLELY speak about the believe that modern Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of medieval Khazars. This does not cover any issue related to conversions of Khazars, which can be found in Poliak, Dunlop, Barthal or Ben Sasson...--Tritomex (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear. You asserted that (a) 'Abraham Poliak (to whom I am very much familiar) never advocated the so called Khazar theory.(b)I carefully red his books and there is no an inch of claim regarding Khazar theory of AJ'

I asked you for sources and page numbers, because Poliak's work is untranslated. You tell me (a) that friends in Israel sent you his books (b) that you cannot read them (c) that HUJ sent you his translated books, (which if they exist are not in the public domain and not RS.)

Poliak's conclusion 'asserted categorically that the great bulk of Eastern European Jewry originated in the territories of the Khazar empire.' .(Sand(2009) 2010:234):'Poliak sought the origins of Eastern European Jewry in Khazaria'.(Golden 2006a:p.29)

So the conclusion must be that everything you asserted above is sheer bluff, to put it nicely. A more courteous person would lament that you are lying through your teeth.

Your latest edit, which showcases what is an extreme minority opinion by Moshe Gil, written when he was 90 years old for a journal of dubious scholarly worth (nearly all experts in Khazarian studies accept that conversion took place) and that flies in the face of contemporary scholarship, follows the assertion:'Undoubtedly as Moshe Gil explains the Khazarian Jewish State fiction was part of Jewish mythology, mostly existing as substitution for the lack of Jewish sovereignty during centuries.'

What is disturbing here is that you are (a) asserting knowledge of books you have not read, (b) making conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of competent scholars who have read them (c)introducing Moshe Gil for challenging the conversion, to WP:POINT make a point about the Ashkenazi-Khazar thesis (d) explicitly taking sides by espousing the truth of one fringe opinion, and dismissing scholarly consensus as a fiction about a fiction. All this shows utter indifference if not contempt for collegial editing and assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to prove anything about myself personally, I have offered you a copy of Poliak book, which I have and which is indeed unusable for direct Misplaced Pages edition as it is not available online.What I also wanted to point out with this offer, is that contrary to myself you never red Poliak, but you relay on secondary and Tertiary claims about his books. Concerning Moshe Gil, personally I do not agree with his views, however he is a well known academic expert from this field, his work did not created any criticism and his views are not less fringe than the Khazarian Theory itself (btw Israel Bartal and Anita Shapira, the two leading contemporary Jewish historians, whose texts about Khazars I also have, are very close in their opinion with Gil. Also, he is considered to be one of the most prominent experts regarding Arab historians, from whom almost all our knowledge regarding Khazars derive. If there is criticism of Gil work, to which I am unfamiliar, I have nothing against adding that criticism by WP:NPOV in parallel with my edits.

To summarize if anyone is interested in my personal opinion, based on material I have red I believe that some form of Judaism adoption/conversion was present among Khazar royalty. What is disturbing here is that the fact that what all non partisan and neutral historians stated from Dunlop to Bernard Lewis claims, namely that Khazar theory is not historically validated theory is somehow omitted from this article. To elaborate how old which author was, whether they rote their books before or after Elhaik home made analysis (probably most of historians never heard about him) in which year they made their works and weather it was before or after Sand era, is beyond the scope of my work here). Again if anyone is interested to receive Poliak book, translated to English, contact me through Wiki mail. I am ready to send it through post.--Tritomex (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a scholar's work, making patently false claims in the face of clear evidence that he maintained a position you, waving inaccessible unknown unnamed private sources, twice denied he held. We do not use primary sources but secondary and tertiary sources that reliably report their contents (WP:RS) You persist in the denial in the face of the evidence I have provided. This obstinacy and, I presume, mendacity or bluffing, is a sanctionable offence. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think Tritomex will be soften by this other very valid point anymore than the, what, 4-5 other ones. Clearly, Tritomex is a crusader on a mission, valuing faith more than facts and horning in just one note. Please don't lose your time trying to rationalize with him, but instead spot all traces of his bias for a potential case for the admin to decide. It will be out of our hands soon, IMO. MVictorP (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is truth that we use secondary sources, however Poliak book is already secondary source. What I wanted to point out and let me now correct myself is that you did not red any of Poliak book.--Tritomex (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why you want first to censor Bernard Lewis now to censor Moshe Gil. It seems that anything beside Elhaik whose name was unknown before 2012 to anyone of us, has the place here. While you added Elhaik in all possible and impossible articles, claiming he is not fringe, a work done by one of the most prominent Jewish historian and one of the most prominent academic scholars of Arabic historians is somehow fringe. All of this despite the fact that all historians and geneticists have diametrically opposite view from Elhaik. What a double standard isn't?_ What Bernard Lewis said is view held by all historians. Yet he also has no place here: He said what he said before Elhaik enlighted everyone, now he likely think othervise, so let us censor his works. Concerning Moshe Gil he is too old to be included! You admit that you never red Poliak, yet you know what he is writing. All historians and all historians agree that the Khazar Theory is not a valid historic theory are eighter too old, or quoted to early, or fringe, only Elahik&Sand deserve their place here as they are quoted in right time and during right age. And all of this is off course not POV pushing.--Tritomex (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the arguments of editors who are trying to sort out a mass of material in terms of the fundamental criteria of WP:Undue, and other policies. To repeat the assertion that somehow there is an attempt here to WP:Censor scholars like Bernard Lewis, or Moshe Gil is, apart from being ridiculous, a serious insinuation against the bona fides of colleagues here. You appear to showcase, with extensive citations of favourite snippets, that just happen to be dated, or counterfactual assertions by older scholars who are not au fait with contemporary Khazar studies. Lewis's remark will be included: but it is nonsensical to imply thereby that the many Jewish and Israeli scholars who, in the past and recently, have adopted, adapted or thought the Khazar-Ashkenazi minority hypothesis worthy of attention, respect or investigation, are Jewish self-haters (antisemites). Gil's essay was published in an obscure journal whose RS status was questioned by Zero some months ago, and reflects the thoughts of an 88 year old Zionist, who refuses to accept the scholarly consensus of all Khazar experts. Eran Elhaik is a young geneticist who has recently written a piece of research on the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis specifically, the first to do so. He therefore can't be excluded, and it is useless your trying to stack the page with the notorious Tritomex compilation of '23' genetic papers from 1996 to 2010 which come to different conclusions, since none of them criticize Elhaik. What you are doing there is pushing your the truth is known angle that genetics has determined the truth of Ashkenazi origins and nothing in scientific research contradicting that paradigm is permissible, which is violently anti-encyclopedic.

Lastly, you don't know the subject, are extemely confused about policies, constantly ignore serious queries by your interlocutors, and, assert you have private non-RS materials given to you by unidentified friends in Israel for this and other pages that help your work here. I.e. you admit that someone who apparently doesn't edit wikipedia is feeding you books and articles to influence the way certain topics are addressed. That is not, strictly speaking, evidence of WP:meatpuppetry, but it doesn't exclude it. All of this makes editing with you extremely difficult.(Nothing wrong with having friends in Israel, or Palestine, or anywhere, who help one obtain material, but we have a chronic problem in this area especially with pro-Israeli sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by banned users, and your note suggests you are unfamiliar with the issue. One must edit by one's own lights, not to assist outsiders who wish to see articles written in certain ways. We have a resource exchange here, and editors active on wikipedia who readily help each other out if they cannot access resources. Nishidani (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have no any valid rights to describe a professor emeritus of t Tel Aviv University as "88 years old Zionist who refuses to accept scholarly concensus" Concerning scholarly consensus all of us knows that it is diametrically opposite from the view held by two marginal scholars on this field Elhaik&Sand as all historians and all population genetic scientists without any exception consider the Khazar Theory as fringe, scientifically and historically unfounded. Yet your edits were aimed to erase this consensus, and as in other places and articles to replace mainstream views with marginal views.

Concerning Gil, Show us any source, criticism or evidence that his views are fringe. It is not upon me to show that the WP:RS has no fringe views but on those who oppose this views. Israel Bartal, Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Douglas Morton Dunlop, Bernard Lewis, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Anita Shapira and numerus other historians and geneticists who believe that there was no mass conversion of Khazars and are clearly stating that the Khazar Theory has no historic validation.--Tritomex (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The New Edits Just Won't Do

Tritomex, against all was discussed here on the talk page, you once again give undue weight to a single opinion, without giving necessary counter-balance, subjectively overcharging the article with a POV taint. You continue to consider the Khazarian Hypothesis as a myth, not as an individual but as a WP Editor, in spite of all the credible work that has been brought to you by your fellowship. More precisely, the connotation method you use here is called the "hamburger", where one squeezes the "ennemy" POV between two much more elaborated bread pieces. It's puerile and outrageous, and a showing of the illest will. You seem to consider that you are the sole intelligent guy among easy-to-fool idiots. I give you 24hrs to radically change your recent edits on this page, or I will delete them for the reasons mentionned. And once again, this is not a question of sources - it's about their treatment.

WP is not propaganda. Everybody can see your bias. If you can't be objective, let go of this article - and of WP editing. Your continued actions costs Misplaced Pages credibility. MVictorP (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore, I will bring your "case" to the admin if you don't comply, using this page as evidence. That's about enough. If you plan this answer this with more one-way rethorics, don't lose your time.MVictorP (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

MVictorP there are no collective views on historic subjects, all historians have individual views, and you can not threaten me here or on my channel page. I have nothing against edition of reliable sources telling the opposite from Moshe Gil. You are free to edit this page. However what you did here, was to remove reliable sources and Bernard Lewis is reliable source. If you want to add criticism of Lewis, Gil, Ben Sasson, Dunlop, Bartal, Atzmon, Behar, Molutsky, Shen, Thomas, genetic or historic scientists you are free to do it. However, what you are doing here with Nishadani is that you removed the work of Galassi and myself without any source because you simply do not like it. You created your account before few days, I am here for years. I witnessed 4 sockpuoppuets doing the same removals with same rhetoric. I advised you, not to follow them, not because I think your account belongs to same sockpuppets but because for every edits/reverts you need a source and you did not present any.--Tritomex (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pff! There you go, once again with one sided-rethorics and sources while my point is elsewhere. How surprising. As of this moment there's just no point discussing with you. I gave you 24 hours, tritomex. Use them well. MVictorP (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that my edits do not reflect the source properly, you are free to suggest changes and I will accept them. I can not make up things, outside the sources and references I have.--Tritomex (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposition were already offered, not one time you ever refered to them in your posts nor your actions. They're up there, still. I have no intent of entering your new edit war - althought I might be forced. MVictorP (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked you directly a) to read the sources b) to read my edits c) to propose DIRECTLY THE WORDING of changes and corrections.--Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I fiercely reject the whole of you edit, no matter how well-sourced it could be (and it is not). I already explained why. I just gave you time to remedy to it, and by doing so help your own case because you are indeed your own worst ennemy. There is little doubts as of yet in my mind that we will have to delete all of it. And then some, as I sadly realized for how much time you have been "working" here. MVictorP (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Tritomex didn't changed a iota of his last litigious edit, and that the article is now locked, I have filled, as promised, a template against Tritomex. MVictorP (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Attempt To Replace Deleted Section

I am still working out the synthax here, so I might not be able to post in the article yet, but given time, I will do it. But I intend to take this time to discuss what I propose, which roughly ressemble this:

Title: "Debate About Ashkenazi Links to Khazars" first Paragraph: Presentation of the existance of two, non-mutually exclusive but conflicting theories about the subject, namely, the Rhineland Hypothesis, and the Khazarian one. Second paragraph: Development of the more established Rhineland Theory, a quick description, its source evidences, and the relevant people who believe in it. Third Paragraph: Rewiew of the more recently-developped Khazarian Hypothesis, its bases and argumentation, as well as those relevant people who stand by it.

Of course, done, with all necessary and correct sourcing. What do you think? MVictorP (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that structuring this article based on contrasting those two theories is based on one of the genetics articles. Elhaik is my memory is correct? I do not think this is the way of presenting the options most sources would necessarily agree with?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Both sides have reasonneable genetics and non-genetic evidences to push their hypothesis, serious and scholarlized enough to not be considered as "fringe". I suggest we resume these evidences there, whitout judging them. As for the "Genetics", it is much too long and give undue weight to just one side of the debate. It's in my sights, to be integrated in the new section.

That being said I would like to read your proposition.MVictorP (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew.----Tritomex (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already written the history of the whole controversy in two paragraphs, with more than two dozen academic sources. Since I regard Tritomex's editing, to cite one problem, as deeply informed by both ignorance of the subject matter, wiki protocols, and POV-pushing I will withhold it until some rational consensus among editors emerges. To illustrate what is going on here

Moshe Gil is now entered with a fringe theory that the conversion never took place. All the scholars Tritomex cites as if people were hindering use of their works (Dunlop 1954 p.170, Ben-Sasson 1976 p.395, Bernard Lewis, 2013 p.61) agree with the scholarly consensus (Golb, Pritsak, Artamatov, Golden, Zimmerman, etc.etc. It is not controversial that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence points to conversion. Moshe Gil is the only scholar I know of (and totally out of his field) who challenges this. So. I'm asking editors to make a judgement on this. Otherwise, this place is a waste of time because editors are just standing by enjoying the way Tritomex is fucking up the process of honest editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So what if Moshe Gil is the only scholar holding this view (which is not the case). Do you thing Moshe Gil is unreliable? I properly attributed the claims to him. All historians and all geneticists are on position that the Khazarian theory of Ashkenazi Jews is not historic theory, yet you edited it multiple times in all possible articles related and unrelated to this subject through the only two persons on earth advocating this theory (Elhaik-Sand). Based on what you believe that Elhaik has its place here, and Moshe Gil (leading academic historian) has no place here? By Wp:NPOV; even if his views are minority view, it should be mentioned.--Tritomex (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please try and answer (you've been evasive all day, and still will not come clean on the fact that you haven't read, despite your assertions to the contrary, Poliak) directly and to the point. You have made a large entry to the page by Moshe Gil, denying conversion. I noted it was fringe. Your reply in the edit summary read (b) 'go to the fringe theory noticeboard') i.e. waste time and (b)'So what?'. Gil is fringe on this. Now you say other scholars share his view. Well, supply their names. Otherwise you are behaving erratically and wasting everybody's time.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ps.Moshe Gil is in my draft:'One scholar, Moshe Gil, dismisses the idea of conversion as a fiction, asserting Khazars were Muslims, and that there is no evidence about Jews in Khazaria, or Khazars converting to Judaism. Given the fact that his ideas challenge everything all experts concur on, even this brief notice is straining WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My contributions to this page have been primarily copyediting. On the conversion debate, I am a bystander. Yet it is clear even to me that the new addition relies too heavily on a single source, particularly for such a controversial claim. Tritomex says there are other sources supporting Gil, yet he cites none in the added passage. Surely there are reactions and counter-arguments to Gil, yet none are discussed. As a relative de novo reader of this material, the debate section fails utterly to educate. It presents a variety of issues and debates in seemingly random order, does not contrast or relate them, and fails to lead one through any parameters of the debate or sub-debates discussed. I realize there are a number of controversial issues at play, but an encyclopedic entry should focus on describing the issues of the debate without taking sides, and leading the interested reader to sources for further study. I look forward to seeing Nishidani's summary for this section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed offensive to other editors. I just want a fair editing environment where, if one works for several hours or days, only on the scholarly record, one may have some degree of assurance that anything one puts here won't be automatically erased, with invitations to start enermously diffuse, unfocused exchanges with the usual talk page blather. I don't expect anyone to join sides. But I do hope editors assist the smoothing out of differences of opinion, by asking that all editors keep focused, and reply to specific issues raised. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys/gals, please: Keep this section for constructive purposes. I have made a proposition - please comment on it or construct one for us to see. If you want to comment Tritomex' one-way editing, do it in the above section. Nishidani, I would like to see this work of yours. Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no longer two conflicting hypotheses (Rhineland vs Khazarian) since the Rhineland hypothesis is shakey and has been refined in several ways (the Balkan hypothesis), and the Khazarian hypothesis has several variants, including population drift of Jews and converts to Judaism fromn Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Georgia, Judea-Syria after the Muslim conquest, Greece/Byzantine outflow of Jewish communities, through the emerging Khazar empire. Therefore, that is best left to the Ashkenazi page (which cannot be edited because Tritomex keeps destroying attempts to allign it with contemporary scholarship). In any case it allows of now brief summation. This stricture applies to your other paragraphs.

We have to consider the inordinate size of this page, which is double the optimal length. Everything has to be boiled down, rather than expanded, though it is difficult given the quantity of information on this subject the page ignores (it may need a fork on the issue). That includes the genetic section, which should be strictly limited only to those geneticists (Ostrer, Elhaik, and a few others) who have directly, in their research, mentioned the Khazar hypothesis. As I see it, we should aim for three para.section entitled -The Ashkenazi-Khazar hypothesis: history, ideology (antisemitism) and genetics.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think MVictorP you have misunderstood me above. The point is that the concept of there being a "Rhineland hypothesis" which is the only main alternative to a Khazar hypothesis is far too limited, and I think you are using genetics sources for history here. Concerning genetic studies I think we should not be giving them a big place there, but if we use them it should be balanced, and that can be difficult. Perhaps MVictorP is not aware that this has been discussed a lot over at Genetic studies on Jews. Nishidani, I do have a bit of a concern about limiting our reference to authors who specifically mention the Khazar hypothesis as these will tend to be "pro" authors. In fact I'd say geneticists are normally going to be pretty wary of saying much on something like this. The problem is that if good studies Haber et al contain information which is opposed to Elhaik, you are saying we can not mention that. So I can see the policy based arguments for your proposal (avoiding WP:SYNTH), but also policy based concerns about it (WP:NPOV).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My take on the Gil article. It ought to be cited, but Tritomex's gushing review is way over the top. Gil is a famous scholar of Jewish history, but has no particular expertise on Khazars and his paper has so far been ignored by specialists. Tritomex, I don't know why it is so hard for you to write in accordance with WP:NPOV. No, Gil did not "point out" anything, he asserted it (though we usually just say that he wrote it). A reader should not be able to tell from the report whether you agree with Gil or not; but in fact it is totally obvious that you are eagerly promoting it. And your summary is very biased. I'll give one example. You: "Gil claimes that the Khazars were by 990 CE Muslims", Gil: "Shams al-Din ... in his book ... written in about 990 AD, describes the cities of the Khazars, noting that they used to be Jews but have already become Muslims." Why did you omit "they used to be Jews" and how does that square with the claim that they never became Jews? (It is a problem for Gil to answer, one of many his paper provokes, but you hid the existence of the problem by selective quotation.) About two sentences is enough to do justice to Gil's article. Zero 12:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Gil, he is famous mostly as he is familiar with medieval Arab historians from whom almost all of our knowledge regarding Khazars derive. However, I agree with your proposal regarding the scope he should be mentioned. Give us your concrete proposal--Tritomex (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure of Debate Section

My comment above was addressed beyond the edit dispute to the overall structure of this broad section of the article. It begins well enough, with the discussion of who converted and when. We then have sub-sections, without explanation, on the Karaims, focusing on whether they are descendents of the Khazars, then the Krymchaks and whether they are ancestors. Then the debate on the Ashkenazi and lastly other claims of descent. Most of the "Debate about conversion" section is not about the conversion debate at all. The sections on descendants, and the debates over those, need to be separated into their own section (I. Debate on Conversion, II. Debates on Descendants), or sub-section (I.A., I.B.). Either way, introductions and transitions would be helpful. Regrettably, I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to attempt this myself amidst swirling controversies. When we reorganized the article in February, this area was identified as a Major Issue. Perhaps we can get some more, to quote Nishidani, editorial momentum together to at least make it coherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Most of these sections can be collapsed into one. The article with all its sections as we have it is a card-castle of tidbits, a bit like Churchill's pudding- it lacks a theme.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Draft proposal. The long version. Comments welcomed

Ashkenazi-Khazar theories

Abraham Eliyahu Harkavi suggested as early as 1869 that there might be a link between the Khazars and European Jews but the theory that Khazar converts formed a major proportion of Ashkenazi was first proposed to a Western public in a lecture by Ernest Renan in 1883. Occasional suggestions emerged that there was a small Khazar component in East European Jews in works by Joseph Jacobs (1886), Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, a critic of anti-Semitism, (1893) Maksymilian Ernest Gumplowicz, and the Russian-Jewish anthropologist Samuel Weissenberg. In 1909 Hugo von Kutschera developed the idea in a book-length study, arguing Khazars formed the foundational core of modern Ashkenazi. Maurice Fishberg introduced the notion to an American audience in 1911. The idea was taken up by the Polish-Jewish economic historian and General Zionist Yitzhak Schipper in 1918 and by scholarly anthropologists, such as Roland B. Dixon (1923) and writers like H. G. Wells (1921), who used it to argue that ‘The main part of Jewry never was in Judea’, a thesis that was to have a political echo in later opinion. In 1942, Abraham N. Poliak, later professor for the history of the Middle Ages at Tel Aviv University, published a Hebrew monograph, concluding that the East European Jews came from Khazaria. D.M. Dunlop, writing in 1954, thought very little evidence backed what was a mere assumption and that the Ashkenazi-Khazar descent theory went far beyond what our imperfect records permit. The theory found limited support in Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur ’but was dismissed by Bernard Weinryb as a fiction (1962). The theory came to the attention of a much wider public with the publication of Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe. which was widely hailed as a breakthrough and dismissed as a fantasy, and a somewhat dangerous one. Israel’s ambassador to Britain branded it ‘an anti-Semitic action financed by the Palestinians,’ while Bernard Lewis claimed that the idea was not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and had been abandoned by all serious scholars. Raphael Patai, however, supplied some support for it, and several amateur self-publishing researchers, such as Boris Altschüler (1994) and Kevin Alan Brook, kept the thesis in the public eye. The theory has been occasionally manipulated to deny Jewish nationhood. Recently, a variety of approaches, from linguistics (Paul Wexler) to historiography (Shlomo Sand) and population genetics (Eran Elhaik) has revived support for and interest in the theory. In broad academic perspective, both the idea that the Khazars converted en masse to Judaism, and the suggestion they emigrated to form the core population of Ashkenazi Jewry, remain highly polemical issues.

Use in anti-Semitic polemics.

Maurice Fishberg and Roland B Dixon’s works were later exploited in racist and religious polemical literature in both Britain, in British Israelism, and the United States. Particularly after the publication of Burton J. Hendrick ‘s The Jews in America (1923) it began to enjoye a vogue among advocates of immigration restriction in the 1920s; racial theorists like Lothrop Stoddard; anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorists like the Ku Klux Klan’s Hiram Wesley Evans; anti-communist polemicists like John O. Beaty and Wilmot Robertson, whose views influenced David Duke.According to Yehoshafat Harkabi (1968) it had played a role in Arab anti-Zionist polemics, and took on an anti-semitic edge. Bernard Lewis, noting in 1987 that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse. Although the Khazar hypothesis never played any major role in anti-semitism,, and though the existence of a Jewish kingdom north of the Caucasus had formerly long been denied by Christian religious commentators, it came to be exploited by the White supremicist Christian movement and even by terroristic esoteric cults like Aum Shinrikyō. Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of draft

Your proposed section, althought formidably sourced, is IMO a bit long and is pretty much all about the Khazarian Hypothesis and its development. This could be seen as POV.

And, I am ambiguous about letting zion politics taint the debate, here on this article. However it is loads better than the version I deleted. MVictorP (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is on the Khazars. Most of it deals with their history. A modern controversy exists, and therefore a section covering its three angles (a)history of the controversy (b)its uses by all sorts of manipulative groups and people as a meme to mock Jews (c) genetics, is required. This can be trimmed, but before we do that we need the full picture.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No major objections here. If a classification by genetics, history and language appears to be consensual instead of a classification by theories, then so be it. MVictorP (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for "restructuring" of this page, beside more POV pushing which is the clear intention here. You want to hide that all historians refuted the so called Khazar theory, replacing 23 genetic studies, numerous (ALL) historians off course again with same persons las you did elsewhere namely Elhaik/Sand and the person without any credibility for historic claims P.Wexler. For those unfamiliar with the subject, this are the only 2 persons in entire scientific world who support Khazar theory. Geneticists like Hammer, Shen, Thomas, Semino, Behar, Atzmon, Molusky Israel historians Bartal(who refured Sand) Anita Shapia, Dunlop, Moshe Gil, Golden, Ben Sasson, Bernard Lewis etc. This is the same what you did in numerous articles.

You were already told by Andrew, that we do not see the need for restructuring of this page, and attempts to erase ALL historic and genetic studies which confirms mainstream scientific position on this subject under the pretext of "restucturing" is the clear intention here --Tritomex (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not tell Nishidani any such thing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I refered to this remark, I guess not intended to anyone specifically --Tritomex (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex I would have thought it was clear that this was a very specific concern about a very specific proposal. I can't see how you can generalize that posting in the way you did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex. You snippet-edit for agreeable POV quotes that back your thesis. There is no record of your (a) thoroughly revising poor pages (b) doing anything other than putting your favorite quotes in to (b) fix the page so that it presents the 'truth' as you have constructed it. The above draft does not take sides. It provides a complete picture of all of the material raised by various editors. Your only response is to contest it because (i) you dislike the drafter and (ii) it aims for WP:NPOV, meaning that it does not tell a triumphant fiction that the theory is racist, and no serious scholar thinks it anything but confuted rubbish. Try and be constructive, and tell us what is technically wrong, in your view, with this presentation. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And if you read back, you will see that last night I remarked that the section requires three subsections, of which I provided above two in draft, while leaving out the genetics section. I.e. that is not excluded from my proposed reorganization. But, as one may judge from my handling above, it must be synthetic, to the point, balanced for NPOV, and not sprawl with comfy quotes.Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have to prove what I did on Misplaced Pages, among other things many articles on many languages, I personally created like Lachish relief or King Ahaz's Seal are testimonial of my work.--Tritomex (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to note these stubs. There are a lot of problems, however, in sourcing, proper English, etc. there. The Ahaz bulla has I source, despite the appearance of several, etc. I won't go into them, but Christoph Uehlingerì’s paper is attributed to the editor of the volume (Grabbe) in which it appears, just as you attribute to Israel Finkelstein, one of the editors, views that the other editor Amihai Mazar, advanced.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani, thank you for making efforts to change previous extremly POV proposition. However, the point of Bernard Lewis contrary to Yehoshafat Harkabi is not that this theory is used in modern Antisemitism, but that this is historically invalid theory.--Tritomex (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Nishidani not giving any representation of the fact that reliable sources have said the theory is false?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see, my mistake.

1)Now Andrew question to you: Do you belive that this artickle needs major "restructuring"? If yes what will happen with other well sourced material already part of this article? I am against their removal.

2) Nishadani, plaese provide direct link to your claim about Patai, Dunlop also needs to be mentioned.

It's in the bibliography below Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

3) Concerning self published and non academic researchers, there are many and I do not think they should be part of Misplaced Pages article.

I never use such sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

4) regarding Bernard Lewis, I propose the following sentence: Bernard Lewis claimed that this theory has no historic base, noting also that Arab scholars had dropped it, remarked that it only occasionally emerged in Arab political discourse.--Tritomex (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already added that. I'm fine with the rephrasing you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

5) regarding Poliak, also please provide link for such claim. Also for Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur becuase I never heard that they advocated this theory.

It's all in Shlomo Sand's book as my notes indicate.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

6) I propose also editing the following sentence "While most of historians agree that the Khazar royalty and nobility adopted some form of Judaism, the theory claiming that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars is not supported by most of historians. However, historian Shlomo Sand came in support of this theory, while Moshe Gil rejected any scale of conversion, based on medieval Arab texts.--Tritomex (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It confuses two sections. Moshe Gil goes into the conversion section, Shlomo Sand here. In commingling two distinct issues of scholarship, you are proposing a total mess.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

7) The view of Israeli ambassador is not important for this article.--Tritomex (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of the oddballs in the American fringe lunatic conspiracy list we've given much detail to, by tthe same criterion, should be eliminated. We cite many nobodies as if they were important. For balance, the Israeli ambassador goes in.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex in answer to your question I have no objection to discussing ideas to restructure the Jewish-Khazar connection section. Being concerned with any change of "structure" would in fact be odd, given that we are only talking about a small section of an article. I find Nishidani has put good work in to try to get a balance using a lot of referencing. Perhaps in an imaginary perfect world we could say that it could be compressed, because it is essentially a digression from Khazar discussion. But I think the history of this article shows that explaining the historical context of such ideas is needed.

Concerning genetics maybe all we need do is add one or two sentences about what is least controversial such as

"The hypothesis of Khazarian ancestry in Ashkenazi has also been a subject of discussion in the new field of population genetics, wherein claims have been made concerning evidence both for and against it. Comparisons of modern Palestinians and modern Ashkenazi show evidence that Palestinians have relatively more Arabian ancestry, and Ashkenazi have relatively more ancestry from both European, and northern Middle Eastern and Caucasian populations."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography used:-

• Michael Barkun, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, UNC Press, 1997, ISBN 978-0-807-84638-4 .
• Paul F. Boller, Memoirs of an Obscure Professor: And Other Essays, TCU Press 1992 ISBN 978-0-875-65097-5
• D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton University Press, 1954
• Louis H. Feldman Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton University Press, 1996 ISBN 978-1-400-82080-1
• Eric L. Goldstein,The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, Princeton University Press ‎2006 p.131 ISBN
• Moshe Gil, 'Did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?,' in Revue des Études Juives, Vol.170, Issue: 3-4 July-December 2011 pp. 429-441 DOI: 10.2143/REJ.170.3.2141801
• David G. Goodman, Masanori Miyazawa Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype, Lexington Books (1995) 2000 ISBN 978-0-739-10167-4
• Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan cults, esoteric nazism, and the politics of identity, NYU Press,(2001) 2003. ISBN 9780814731550
• Andrew Colin Gow, The” Red Jews: Antisemitism in the Apocalyptic Age 1200-1600, BRILL, 1995 ISBN 978-9-004-10255-2
• Yehuda Halevi,The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, trans N.D.Korobkin, Northvale, New Jersey- Jerusalem 1998
• Yehoshafat Harkabi, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Helen Fein, (ed.) The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 978-3-110-10170-6, pp.412-427
• Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, (1976) Pan, London 1977
• Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, W.W. Norton and Company, 1987, ISBN 978-0-393-30420-6,
• Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-1-135-03021-6
• Jacob Litman, The Economic Role of Jews in Medieval Poland: The Contribution of Yitzhak Schipper, Lanham, University Press of America 1984
• Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai Wing The Myth of the Jewish Race, (1975) Wayne State University Press 1989 ISBN
• Vadim Joseph Rossman, Russian Intellectual Antisemitism in the Post-Communist Era, University of Nebraska Press, 2002 ISBN 978-0-803-23948-7
• Robert Singerman, Contemporary Racist and Judeophobic Ideology Discovers the Khazars, or, Who Really Are the Jews?, Rosaline and Myer Feinstein Lecture Series,2004
• Moses A. Shulvass, The History of the Jewish People, Regnery Gateway, 1985,vol. 2, pp. 116-18. ISBN 978-0-895-26657-6)
• Antony Polonsky, Jakub Basista, Andrzej Link-Lenczowski, (eds.) The Jews in Old Poland: 1000-1795, I B Tauris & Company 1993 ISBN 978-1-850-43342-2
• H G Wells, The Outline of History: The Roman Empire to the Great War,, Barnes & Noble reprint 2004, vol.2 ISBN 978-0-760-75867-0 Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Poliak, Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur I insist original quotes or quotes from original literature as Israel Bartal accused Shlomo Sand of falsifying some of his claims and nowhere in any literature I found such claims.

Also When I spoke about armature historians I speoke about K.A.Brook and similar who in my op pinion should not be part of this article.

Dunlop view that the Khazarian thoery of Ashkenazi Jews has no historic evidence should be included.

If shlomo Sand is included, the most famous living Jewish historian Israel Bartal must be included also (by Wp:NPOV)

Israel Bartal writes : "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is. Like him, I am not one of those who support the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies against minority groups in this country in the name of arguments pretending to represent “historical values.” However, critical readers of Sand’s study must not overlook the intellectual superficiality and the twisting of the rules governing the work of professional historians that result when ideology and methodology are mixed...Moreover, the author’s treatment of Jewish sources is embarrassing and humiliating. What serious reader who knows the history of modern Hebrew literature can take seriously the views expressed in a book that defines “Bohen tsadik” (Investigating a Righteous Man), a satirical (fictional!) work by the Galician intellectual and supporter of the Haskalah Yosef Perl (1773-1839), as something that was written by a person named Yitzhak Perl and which “contains 41 letters from rabbis that relate to various aspects of Jewish life”? Who would attest to the accuracy of facts in a research study where it is stated that historian Joseph Klausner (1874-1958) — a scholar who never was (despite his burning ambition to do so) a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and who, instead, served there as a professor of Hebrew literature — “was in fact the first official historian of the ?Second Temple period’ at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem”? Does such sloppiness reflect the author’s attitude to the subject of his research? Or, perhaps, because everything is an invention anyway, it does not really matter whether the “imagined object” is black or white?"

Anita Shapira wrote: Sand is bent on undermining the traditional Jewish narrative, which depicts the Jewishpeople of today as the descendants of the biblical and Second Temple Jews who lost their land,dispersed over the world, yet retained their bond to the land-of-Israel homeland, to which – as the Scroll of Independence states – they have now returned. This portrayal of the Jewish people, he contends, is the result of the work of the great Jewish historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially Heinrich Graetz, Simon Dubnow, and Ben-Zion Dinur. The “bad guys” in the story are the historians for having invented the Jewish people. Sand does not distinguish between Zionists and other types of Jewish nationalists; hence he situates Graetz and Dubnow in the bosom of Zionism, as having created the national narrative that eventually served Zionism. He dismisses the great Jewish historians and finds fault with the concepts of sociologist Anthony Smith because they are not consistent with his own conceptions. .... This topic has been treated in a comprehensive article by my colleague, Israel Bartal, and I will not deal with it again here. At the heart of Sand’s book we find the claim that the Jews of Eastern Europe, the “Yiddish people” by his definition, do not originate with the Jews who came from the Middle East via Ashkenaz to Poland, but with the Khazars, nomadic tribes that built an empire between the Black and the Caspian seas, converted to Judaism in the eighth century, and scattered to the four winds when their state was destroyed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Sand claims that until the 1960s the “Zionist reconstructors of the past” (well-known forgers) did not conceal the Khazar origins of Jews but since then, a “time of silence” has cloaked the subject. He surmises that the change stemmed from one of two causes: either (1) decolonization, which made it necessary to prove that Jews are not merely the white settlers of a country not theirs (such claims against Zionism had already emerged at the start of the British Mandate, during that very same period in which, according to Sand, the Zionists did not conceal their Khazar origin); or (2) the added weight given to ethnicity in the politics of identity in the 1970s (but, he claims that the “time of silence” began earlier. There were people who took pains to play down the Khazar connection, Sand asserts, “as the state’s memory mechanisms became established and consolidated in the State of Israel” (pp. 206–8). The idea of a conspiracy of dark forces sitting and plotting what to excise from collective memory reflects the paranoia of an ideological minority that seemingly believes that if they were in power, this is how they would behave. Have historians really claimed what Sand is attributing to them? It appears that their assertions were far more qualified though they did mention the Khazars and were even enthusiastic about the idea of a Jewish kingdom in the early Middle Ages. On the question of the Khazars, Sand’s methods again come to the fore as he grabs at the most unorthodox theory in the field and stretches it to the outer limits of logic and beyond. A few examples: scholars disagree on whether all the Khazars or only the monarchy and aristocratic elite converted to Judaism. To Sand it is clear that all the Khazars converted. When the Khazar state was conquered by the Russians and the royal family and nobility were apparently killed, the sources speak about some of the Khazars converting to Islam and some to Christianity. Some apparently continued to be Jewish, settling in the Crimean Peninsula and the city of Kiev in Russia. What the actual figures were remains unknown, but they did not number in the masses. The sources are very sparse; to the extent that there is any archeological evidence, it is very little. The whole subject straddles the seam between legend and historical reality. The most esteemed scholar of the Khazar monarchy, by Sand’s own acknowledgment, is D. M. Dunlop, a British non-Jew in command of the languages needed to study the Khazars, on whom information is found in Arabic, Hebrew, Byzantine and Chinese literature. This information is fragmentary and at times contradictory. Dunlop, at the end of his book, relates to the theory that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the descendants of the Khazars; he states that “This can be dealt with very shortly, because there is little evidence which bears directly upon it, and it unavoidably retains the character of a mere assumption"

Note that Heinrich Graetz, Simon Dubnow, and Ben-Zion Dinur are all mentioned on opposite side from Shlomo Sand. This is among others one of reason why I insist on original quotes from them. So if Shlomo Sand is included by WP.NPOV Bartal and Shapira should be included too.

Off course Dunlop, Dubin and Gil. Concerning the criticism of Khazar assumptions of Sand I propose also to read Hillel Halkin and Simon Schama,--Tritomex (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• most famous living Jewish historian Israel Bartal.

Well that’s your point of view. Others would give the honour to Yehuda Bauer. or a few other grises eminences. Boosterism like this is pointless.

• Concerning Poliak, Salo Wittmayer Baron and Ben-Zion Dinur I insist original quotes or quotes from original literature.

No. This shows you are unfamiliar with policy. See WP:V

• armature historians I spoke about K.A.Brook and similar who in my op pinion should not be part of this article.

’Armature’ is a beautiful portmanteau neologism, a Carrollian meld of ‘armchair’ (historian) and ‘amateur (historian). Commendable. But I’m afraid your objection only shows you fail to observe that he is cited by Peter Golden, and in wikipedia, if an amateur armchair historian is cited by a world authority on the subject, he gets into the text via that source.

• Dunlop view that the Khazarian thoery of Ashkenazi Jews has no historic evidence should be included.

Acceptable. I have added the relevant remarks to the text.

• If Shlomo Sand is included, the most famoues current Jewish historian Israel Bartal must be included also (by Wp:NPOV) He wrrites: "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is.

No. Your quote doesn’t correct any error in my use of Sand. And, were this a precedent, every book quoted would have to be accompanied by the critical literature of peer scholars who have found something wrong in it. We don’t do that. No one does it.

• Anita Shapira wrrote:

Of course, a generic criticism of Sand, which is neither here nor there. Many scholars see her work as vitiated by Zionist sympathies (‘the bellwether of Zionist sympathies’ was Norman Finklestein’s phrase), but we cite her nonetheless in articles without mentioning that fact. The passage you quote from her is itself, at a glance, defective, and she is on unsure ground, taking Dunlop (1954) to be the final word on a subject that has had an enormous amount of fresh scholarship added to it in the last three decades, etc.

In general, please do not presume that other editors are unfamiliar with these things. Quoting blocks of irrelevant material on a scholar who is RS for this specific topic is pointless, and assumes one is not familiar with it. This is not a bartering place where one argues for everything one wants. Reasonable points will be accepted. Attempts to challenge RS generically are mistaken unless what has been used for the article from a source is specifically noted in the critical literature to be defective. From your material, neither Bartal, Shapira or anyone else has challenged those three or four points I have cited from Sand’s book, and therefore introducing them is inflative, distractive and WP:IDONTLIKEIT-crabbing at a source for non-textual reasons.

Generally your remarks overlook the function of the section which is to highlight the landmarks in the development of a theory, and its sceptics. I could gloss every name there with secondary sources critical of Schipper, Renan, Koestler et. al. That is not the point of NPOV writing of an historical synthesis of the landmarks in a geneaology of ideas.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First, with sources I have serious doubts about claims made here. Shlomo Sand has been accused by one of most prominent Jewish historian Israel Bartal of falsifying claims from other Jewish historians and yet this claims are proposed by Nishadani to be included per Sand controversial book (because they do not exist in original form)(the same sources and same quotes Bartal accused Sand of misinterpreting, while Anita Shapira even claimed that this historians wrote directly the opposite than it is claimed) I asked Nishidani to provide links to Poliak ,Ben-Zion Dinur, Baron etc. The claims made here DO NOT EXIST IN THEIR BOOKS!!! and of course he will not be able to provide those links. Abraham Harkavy who suggested that Krymchaks, Karaims are descendants of Khazars is here linked with Ashkenazi. K. A.Brook an amateur historian who is according to Nishadani reliable source does not even advocate the Khazar Theory as Sand, but as he writes in his book (and his website) he believes that "Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of ancient Israelites and Khazars" with higher portion of Israelite contribution. Yet this is again thrown out. The views of controversial french cinema history professor Shlomo Sand, whose material on Khazars received enourmes quantity of criticism from academic society from accusations of falsification and misinterpretation to invention of claims (to quote Bartal) is presented without any of this criticism as established fact. No criticism-as if there was no any. In the era of population genetics a racist book from 1923 is used with claim that "The Arabs of Palestine are probably more closely related to the Judeans" which is btw totally unrelated to subject and POV pushing. Everything is sourced with Sand&Elhaik, occasionally with the amateur historian Brook,(whose reliability according to Nishidani lies in the fact that he is mentioned by Golden -although I again did not saw the link)

Huge amount of literature is written bellow b Nishidani, still not a single DIRECT LINK to any of claim made here. Dubin,Bartal, Ben Sasson, Shapira, Gil, Hillel Halkin, Simon Schama,Yehoshafat Harkabi all historians representing 99% of academic views on this subject opposing Khazar Theory are nowhere. Shlomo Sand/Elhaik, the only two scholars advocating this theory are everywhere and of course without any criticism. The whole article will look like a Résumé of Shlomo Sand and his book. This kind of substitution of currently relatively balanced article with unsourced and misinterpreted ideological pamphlet is totally unacceptable in my opinion. btw I will be absent in coming days.--Tritomex (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You've done no real work, and raised endless complaints, many of which suggest you are not reading my sources or my edit proposal. I accepted two suggestions. If you can bullet-point where I have misrepresented sources, please note them down. I can't, no one can, cope with flag-waving and generic expostulations about Dubin,Bartal, Ben Sasson, Shapira, Gil, Hillel Halkin, Simon Schama,Yehoshafat Harkabi, only one of whom has a direct direct professional competence in this matter. Please write succinctly and to the point. This is not an agony column, and I'm not a fifth column. The only columns here that count are the four pillars.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

From all of this academic historians of the Jewish people, leading academic professors OF JEWISH HISTORY only one has direct professional competence in this matter??? and Shlomo Sand has direct professional competence in this matter??? Common, Nishidani. Concerning wording/sourcing I already said that your wording/claims regarding Poliak ,Ben-Zion Dinur, Baron etc do not exist in their original books. That is why Israel Bartal acused Sand of falsifying Jewish historians and that is why you are unable to provide original references from their books.

I will be absent for few days. Wishing everyone all the best--Tritomex (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Chronicles of Khazars, Hrono Template:Ru icon
2. "Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital". FoxNews. Associated Press. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2008-10-28.
3. "Chechens and Jews", accessed 23 December 2010
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lewis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." Harkabi, Yehoshafat, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Fein, Helen. The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 3-11-010170-X, p. 424.
6. "Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." Harkabi, Yehoshafat, "Contemporary Arab Anti-Semitism: its Causes and Roots", in Fein, Helen. The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, Walter de Gruyter, 1987, ISBN 3-11-010170-X, p. 424.
7. >Gil 2011, pp. 429–441 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGil2011 (help).
8. Rossman 1976, p. 98 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRossman1976 (help): Abraham Harkavy, O yazykye evreyev, zhivshikh v drevneye vremya na Rusi i o slavianskikh slovakh, vstrechaiuschikhsia u evreiskikh pisatelei, St. Petersburg.
9. Barkun 1997, p. 137 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarkun1997 (help): Ernest Renan, "Judaism as a Race and as Religion." Delivered on the January 27, 1883.
10. >Rossman 1976, p. 98 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRossman1976 (help).
11. Singerman 2004, p. 3-4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSingerman2004 (help), Israël chez les nations (1893)
12. Polonsky, Basista & Link-Lenczowski 1993, p. 120 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPolonskyBasistaLink-Lenczowski1993 (help). In the book Początki religii żydowskiej w Polsce, Warsaw: E. Wende i S-ka, 1903.
13. Goldstein 2006, p. 1318 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldstein2006 (help). Goldstein writes: ‘The theory that Eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars was originally proposed by . .Samuel Weissenberg in an attempt to show that Jews were deeply rooted on Russian soil and that the cradle of Jewish civilization was the Caucasus’. Weissenberg’s book Die Südrussischen Juden, was published in 1895.
14. Koestler 1976, pp. 134, 150 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKoestler1976 (help). Die Chasaren; historische Studie, A. Holzhauen,Vienna.1909.2nd ed.1910.
15. Koestler 1976, pp. 134, 150 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKoestler1976 (help).
16. Goldstein 2006, p. 131 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldstein2006 (help). Maurice Fishberg, The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment.
17. Litman 1984, pp. 85–110, 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLitman1984 (help). Schipper’s first monograph on this was published in the Almanach Žydowski (Vienna) in 1918, While in the Warsaw ghetto before falling victim to the Holocaust at Majdanek, Schipper (1884-1943) was working on the Khazar hypothesis.
18. Brook 2010, p. 210 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrook2010 (help).
19. Wells 2004, p. 2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWells2004 (help): ‘There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Turkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples-mainly semitic. As a result of these coalescences and assimilations, almost everywhere in the towns throughout the Roman Empire, and far beyond it in the east, Jewish communities traded and flourished, and were kept in touch through the Bible, and through a religious and educational organization. The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea’.
20. Singerman 2004, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSingerman2004 (help).
21. Morris 2003, p. 22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorris2003 (help): Pasha Glubb held that Russian Jews ‘have considerably less Middle Eastern blood, consisting largely of pagan Slav proselytes or of Khazar Turks.’ For Glubb, they were not ‘descendants of the Judeans . .The Arabs of Palestine are probably more closely related to the Judeans (genetically= than are modern Russian or German Jews’. . 'Of course, an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners'.
22. Roland Burrage Dixon The Racial History of Man, 1923; H. G. Wells , The Outline of History (1921)
23. Golden 2007a, p. 29 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGolden2007a (help). 'Poliak sought the origins of Eastern European Jewry in Khazaria'. First written as an article, then as a monograph (1942), it was twice revised in 1944, and 1951 as Kazariyah: Toldot mamlaxa yehudit (Khazaria:The History of a Jewish Kingdom in Europe) Mosad Bialik, Tel Aviv, 1951.
24. Sand 2010, p. 234 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2010 (help).
25. Dunlop 1954, pp. 261, 263 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDunlop1954 (help).
26. Sand 2009, p. 241-2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help). For Baron see Baron Salo vol.3 pp.196-206
27. {{harvnb|Golden |2007a|p=55:’Salo Baron, who incorrectly viewed them as Finno-Ugrians, believed that the Khazars “sent many offshoots into the unsubdued Slavonic lands, helping ultimately to build up the great Jewish centers of eastern Europe’
28. Golden 2007a, p. 55 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGolden2007a (help):’dismissed. . .rather airily’.
29. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
30. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
31. Lewis 1987, p. 48 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewis1987 (help): ‘Some limit this denial to European Jews and make use of the theory that the Jews of Europe are not of Israelite descent at all but are the offspring of a tribe of Central Asian Turks converted to Judaism, called the Khazars. This theory, first put forward by an Austrian anthropologist in the early years of this century, is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.’
32. Patai & Patai 1989, p. 71 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPataiPatai1989 (help): 'it is assumed by all historians that those Jewish Khazars who survived the last fateful decades sought and found refuge in the bosom of Jewish communities in the Christian countries to the west, and especially in Russia and Poland, on the one hand, and in the Muslim countries to the east and the south, on the other. Some historians and anthropologists go so far as to consider the modern Jews of East Europe, and more particularly of Poland, the descendants of the medieval Khazars.’
33. Golden 2007a, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGolden2007a (help)
34. Brook 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrook2009 (help)
35. Toch 2012, p. 155,n.4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToch2012 (help).
36. Sand 2009, p. 240. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help)
37. >Wexler 2007, pp. 387–398 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWexler2007 (help).
38. Sand 2009, pp. 190–249 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSand2009 (help).
39. Elhaik 2012, pp. 61–74 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFElhaik2012 (help).
40. Golden 2007, pp. 9–10 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGolden2007 (help).
41. Goldstein 2006, p. 131 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldstein2006 (help).
42. Singerman 2004, pp. 4–5 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSingerman2004 (help).
43. Goodrick-Clarke 2002, p. 237 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoodrick-Clarke2002 (help).
44. .Boller 1992, pp. 2, 6–7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoller1992 (help). Barkun 1997, pp. 141–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarkun1997 (help). Beaty was an anti-Semitic, McCarthyite professor of Old English at SMU, author of ‘The Iron Curtain over America, (Dallas 1952). According to him, ‘the Khazar Jews . .were responsible for all of America’s – and the world’s ills, beginning with World War 1. The book ‘had little impact’ until the former Wall Street broker and oil tycoon J. Russell Maguire promoted it.
45. Barkun 1997, pp. 140–141 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarkun1997 (help). His ‘’Dispossessed Majority’’(1972)
46. Harkabi 1987, p. 424 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarkabi1987 (help):"Arab anti-Semitism might have been expected to be free from the idea of racial odium, since Jews and Arabs are both regarded by race theory as Semites, but the odium is directed, not against the Semitic race, but against the Jews as a historical group. The main idea is that the Jews, racially, are a mongrel community, most of them being not Semites, but of Khazar and European origin." This essay was translated from Harkabi Hebrew text 'Arab Antisemitism' in Shmuel Ettinger, Continuity and Discontinuity in Antisemitism, (Hebrew) 1968 (p.50).
47. Barkun 1997, pp. 136–7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarkun1997 (help):'The Khazar theory never figured as a major component of anti-Semitism. Indeed, it receives only scant attention in Léon Poliakov’s monumental history of the subject.’
48. Gow 1995, pp. 30–31, n.28 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGow1995 (help).
49. Barkun 1997, pp. 142–144 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarkun1997 (help).
50. Goodman & Miyazawi 2000, pp. 263–264 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoodmanMiyazawi2000 (help).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Mid-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
• Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Norse history and culture articles
• High-importance Norse history and culture articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press