Talk:Khazars

Introducing new matter

I removed this:

In opposition, in the Chinese lists of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people contained in the old and the new "Histories of the Tang Dynasty," the tribe of Kosa (Qasar) is referred to as the sixth. In the other important Tang compendium, Tang Huiyao ("Institutional History of Tang"), the tribe Sijie (Siker,Esegels) is named as the sixth one. This contradiction was already noticed by E. Pulleyblank and was finally explained by T. Senga, who showed that both Tanshu combined the list of names for "small" tribes (subtribal names) which were a part of the Uighurs, and the list of names of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people. Summarizing the results of several studies by Japanese scholars, T. Senga showed that the tribe Kosa (Qasar) dominated in the tribal group of the Sijie (Siker,Esegel), which included the tribe Apusy (Abuz).

S.G. Klyashtornyi from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in several of his works considered as the fact that Qasar/Kosa/Khazar are the same tribe and as the fact that the tribal alliance of Qasar/Khazar only partially migrated to the west of the Eurasian steppes(Klyashtornyi 2005, 2007)

Some of this might, in a sentence, be retried. It is unlinked, refers to inaccessible sources, and is needlessly fixated on an issue best clarified on the relevant pages. Generally, I see an indifference to the scholarly format that is the page's standard in several new edits, and the effect is to scar or blight the work done so far. Editors should try to adopt the conventions agreed on for a page.

Ar means nobles

Khaz-ars, Bulg-ars, Tat-ars, "Ar-yan" (Ar - horse, Yan - people), etc., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan .

NPOV Concern on This Article

I attempted to edit this article so as to tone down some of the WP:NPOV issues (or what I perceive to be a POV issue); however, it seems that if I continue to do so that an edit war is going to erupt, so, instead of initiating one, I am going to bring up the point here.

As I read through the lead, everything seemed objective until I read the end: "In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jews descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany. This theory still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with scepticism.[24][25] The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism[26] and anti-Zionism.[27]" First of all, I think it is a little peculiar that the loaded word "antisemitism" appears in the lead of an article that is dedicated to a nation that existed for almost 400 years. Anti-Zionism, I can understand, since it would discredit the claim of Israelis that they are merely "returning home" rather than conquering the Palestinians. And, though it is true that some anti-Zionists do have anti-Jewish sentiment as well, to me, it seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV to throw the loaded word anti-semitism here. It is, after all, a historical article. According to WP:NPOV, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

Read the two sources attached to this sentence and you'll see that one of them is just a line from this book on linguistics by Paul Wexler and the other is actually an article in which an Israeli-born geneticist claims that the theory that Ashkenazi Jews did originate from Israeli is, in fact, bogus. Is he anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist? There's no evidence to show that in the article. Personally, I understand that Ashkenazi Jews do not like this theory about the Khazars because it undermines their "Homeland" claim and, also, I understand that opponents of Israelis can use it for this purpose, but don't you think it's a little propagandistic to suggest (as this article does) that the theory itself is antisemitic (or "sometimes" antisemitic)? What if it is actually right?

I just think this needs to be toned down for the sake of WP:NPOV. It is currently seething with pro-Israeli propaganda right now as I see it. Let's tone it down and make it more objective, as the rest of the lead is. Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote virtually the whole article, and the text you question. If you think I'm a paladin of pro-Israeli propaganda, check my record for being hounded by pro-Israeli propagandists in here. As to the specifics: Wexler's words are crucial - he is in the minority, but straight as a die. The gravamen of that article clearly shows that it can hardly be anti-Semitic since it has a long tradition in Jewish thought. Secondly, it is well-documented that particularly American anti-Semites, and some in Canada, associated the theory with their bullshit, as though it were a fact, not an historical hypothesis. The lead sums up the body of the text, which documents the way the lunatic fringe did use it to get at Jewish people. That in no way is an argument against a theory. It is simply an illustration of the instrumental use of a theory which, in itself, has no such implication, something that is, alas, normal in human and esp. political discourse.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't care about your track record. I care about the neutrality of the article and, however you wrote it is conflicting with the neutrality of the article, I believe. "The theory is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism" is just an underhanded way of saying "the theory is antisemitic," and to say otherwise would be disingenuous. I agree that the theory is used by anti-Zionists and antisemites, but the first question is, why is this an important thing to mention in the lead of a historical article? That is like writing in the article on ancient Egypt that black nationalists sometimes stake claim to being the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Is that really a relevant comment for the lead of an article? It just gives undue emphasis to anti-semitism, especially when it should just be an objective historical article. As it currently stands, you're dedicating 3 sentences of the lead to anti-semitism. Is this really appropriate is it perhaps overmuch? I think the latter.

Again, I think it needs to be toned down. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Тhe Wexler opinion goes against mainstream consensus of scholar hence per WP:NPOV we should give it a very little space.The wording was decided after much deliberation if you want really to change it you should bring really good sources that contradict those currently in the article--Shrike (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ambrosiaster, I think you are reading between the lines. Do you disagree that there is a real notable and verifiable link between the subject of the Khazars and some types of anti-semitism? If there is such a link then we know we should mention it at least in passing. (One reason is basic content policy, but the other is that NOT mentioning it surely will lead to endless accusations of non-neutrality. This of course does not mean that all people who believe the theory are anti-semitic. Do you really think it is saying this? If so, how would you word it so as to avoid it saying this? BTW I recall the theory is spelled out and handled in the body, where I think the article makes it clear that it is not simply an anti-semitic theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the Britannica article on Khazars for reference. In their article on Khazars, it reads (and not in the lead), "A few scholars have even asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many eastern European and Russian Jews. Whatever the case may be, religious tolerance was practiced in the Khazar empire, and paganism continued to flourish among the population." Don't you see how much more measured this tone is than the propagandistic language that is being peddled on Wikipedia? Of course, I do not oppose this controversial/anti-Zionist angling of the theory being mentioned somewhere in the article, but why even say "anti-semitism" in the lead of an article concerning a group of people who roamed the earth for 400 years? It just seems like it is giving undue emphasis to a modern-day minority group who, quite frankly, should not be featured in the lead of the article. Let the article be about Khazars, not about Ashkenazi Jews. The theory regarding them can be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not given so much attention in the lead. If there are some fringe conspiracy theorists who want to angle a theory/history that may or may not be credible (Britannica doesn't seem to discredit it as emphatically as Wikipedia does) in a controversial manner, then point that out somewhere else in the article. Three sentences in the lead is excessive, don't you think? -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is that it is notable, and with increased public interest in speculations about population genetics etc, it has increased in notability. See WP:NOTE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Even this seems slightly more measured to me: "In the late 19th century, a theory emerged that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jews descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany. This theory still finds occasional support among historians, but many scholars view it with scepticism,[24][25] and some associate it with antisemitism[26] and anti-Zionism.[27]" To say, "It is sometimes associated with antisemitism" to me is sort of conveying the message that it is indeed antisemitic. Categorically and without question. As the WP:NPOV policy states, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Likewise, I think it would be appropriate to say that some scholars associate it with antisemitism rather than to say categorically (with the exception of the 'sometimes') that it is antisemitic. (And this is just suggested if everyone is dead-set on keeping it in the lead, which I already oppose.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)