Talk:Khazars

Undue weight given to role of Judaism in this article

NPOV section states that:

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

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

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

The article makes clear that other religions were practiced in Khazaria. The latest scholarship suggests that Judaism was widespread, and this is one of the things the Khazars were best known for. You have presented absolutely no justification for removing the DNA evidence section, as this is a major controversy surrounding this people. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Briangotts. This article seems pretty well-balanced already. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not well balanced yet. First I'd like to ask why the NPOV tags I placed were removed in less than a day? It clearly states that we should not do so. I did not expect you (Briangotts) to understand the undue weight matter I raised since you are probably the one who created it in the first place. I will put the NPOV tags back so that others can come and discuss this matter too. Second I placed referenced information that was deleted with a comment that they were "misleading". In what way? Are you questioning the credibility of the souce? I will quotee from another source. I do not thing the article in its current form gives this perspective:

The Khazar Turks who seized the Russian steppes in the 670s are best remembered because their ruling elite converted to Judaism a century later. Like many steppe peoples the Khazars were of mixed origins but their state endured longer than that of most. Even before Muslim Arabs appeared on their southern frontier the Khazars had allied themselves with Byzantium against Sassanian Iran and this traditional friendship continued after the Sassanians collapsed. The Arabs proved to be much more formidable neighbors and this clash forced the Khazars to move their Caucasus capital north to the mouth of the Volga. Originally shamanist, the Khazars almost converted to Islam following a shattered defeat by an Arab army which chased the Khazar Khagan right across the steppes into the forests of the north. Instead, however, the Khagan went back on his agreement and revived the Khazar alliance with Byzantium. A short time later the ruling elite converted to Judaism, though the number of converts remains a matter of heated debate. Others adopted Christianity or turned to Islam which most Khazars accepted after the collapse of their state in the early 11th century.

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

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

Use of the Label "Anti-Semite"

The label Anti-Semite is indiscriminately slapped on innumerable numbers of people by this article. The references are so broad as to be rendered meaningless. This usage is common to all articles involving Jews. Therefore, I think the label should be permanently banned from any use on any article dealing with Jews, for all time. This label should be treated exactly like the labels "asshole" "motherfucker" or "cocksucker." In other words, the label (anti-semite) should be erased, except when used as a criticism of itself. Furthermore, the people using the label should be treated in exactly the same way as someone who used profanity in reference to another person/group, except of course, in a criticism of doing so, as I've done in this comment. (Barkmoss 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

I absolutely disagree, if only because it's *not* a curse word like the foul words to which it is erroneously compared. The fact that some may disagree with how it has been used, or not like being called one, or even if people mis-use it - none of these mean that the word itself should be banned. I also disagree if only for the extreme terms being suggested for the proposed ban.FlaviaR (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further criticism of the label is that it is, in reality, a meaningless term. Palestinians are Semites too! People who blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis are usually Semites. People who are killed by the Israeli Military are generally Semites. If that doesn't prove to someone that the term is meaningless, then they either live in a coffee pot or their skull is made out of concrete; in essence, they are in denial. Barkmoss (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that people insisting that the majority of modern Ashkenazi are all Khazars and therefore are not entitled to live in Israel are anti-Semitites, especially since it has been disproven genetically. As well as the fact that nearly every anti-Semetic and neo-Nazi website denounces Askenazi Jews as "Khazars". As for the word "Semite" being applicable to Arabs as well as Jews, well, the English language rarely makes sense. The word "Cunt" was allegedly once a term of respect for wise women, it doesn't change the fact that its a vicious insult today. Arguing semantics is pointless. Oh, by the way Barkmoss, please sign your posts using for tildes instead of just typing your username and the date. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page. Asarelah (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See, the way you use the label is meaningless. You call someone that you don't like an "anti-Semite," because they question wether or not most Jews are actually Semitic/entirely Semitic. Remember, Al Franken, Donny Deutsch, Madonna, Whoopi and John Stewart are all supposed to be "Semitic peoples." THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE IT! So, it isn't surprising that lots of people question that by musing: all of their blood line must not be Semitic or otherwise they wouldn't look like Germans, French, Italians, Negroes, Slavs, etc. Apparently, the genetic research backs this up, because it implies that Jews are mixed. Furthermore, the genetic research apparently backs up the claim that Palestinians (among others) are also "Semitic peoples." You know, Ishmael was a son of Abraham too. So, the claim, that Semitic is exclusively Jewish and all Jews are exclusively Semitic appears to be bogus. However, it is Jews (partial Semites that kill other partial Semites) who are constantly screaming/whining: "ANTI-SEMITISM!" That's Nuts! Finally, your poor attention to grammar demonstrates, what appears to be, a lack of self-respect and respect for readers (which, by the way, is not surprising). Barkmoss (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The way *you react* to the word is not quite meaningless, but it is telling. You have shown, at the very least, that you have no idea what the word actually means. It means "Jew-hater" because that was precisely what it was coined to mean. And not by Jews. And as far as poor education goes, you have less than no right to be picking on anyone else's, because your description of Jews - both in lineage & actions - is atrocious (& if you really think "Whoopi Goldberg" is Jewish,then your knowledge base is even tinier than I suspected). FlaviaR (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O.k., o.k, one day Whoopi's a Jew, the next she ain't and then she is again! Pardon me for not keeping up with my "who's a Jew and who ain't" current events. In any case, you still got people like Sammy Davis Jr and all the rest. You gonna give me this, "who's a Jew" bologna; forget about it! The Old Testament followed paternal not maternal descent and it certainly would not have condoned abortion (little details that seem to have escaped your "great" Rabbi). On the other hand, Jews seem to have made a nation out of themselves despite all their contradictions. So, the who's a "Jew" debate only adds to the confusion that outsiders feel and the questions that naturally produces. Hence, calling that a bad name is inappropriate and erroneous; it's like calling the inquisitive mind of a child, "pure evil." Of course, that doesn't stop evil people from passing laws against and persecuting people they label as, "anti-Semites."

Using the term "Jew-Hater" instead of "anti-Semite" would at least be clearer. Although, given the current usage of the term, it would imply an irrationality that is unwarranted. In other words, strong disapproval of Jews in your/someone else's country, Jews doing something or Jews saying something, does not make you a raving homicidal lunatic, who wants to murder the entire global population of Jews. Barkmoss (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I call people who insist that the Ashkenazi are all Khazars anti-Semites because they insist that it is so despite the fact that is has been disproven by science. That is all that I stated, I never claimed that Arabs were not Semetic people, nor did I claim that Semetic is exclusively Jewish and that all Jews are exclusively Semetic. You are using a straw man arguement against my statement. Finally, your personal attacks on my grammar and your accusations of lack of self-respect and respect for my readers (and your comment that is "not suprising") constitute a personal attack, which is against the policy of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Asarelah (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Believing something that you don't, does not = wanting to kill the entire global population of Jews. So, calling others mean names is wrong; you shouldn't call people who say things that you think are wrong, bad names. Even a child would know that; it's immature and uncivilized. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Since you know the term is used so poorly, you should agree that it needs to be eliminated from the lexicon.

In regards to your grammar, you should use good spelling! Barkmoss (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic" does not necessarily equal wanting to kill the entire global population of Jews, it just means prejudice towards Jews which may or may not extend to desiring genocide. Frankly, I don't know what your point is here. Do you want the term “anti-Semitism” totally expunged from Wikipedia? Is that what’s upsetting you? If so, then I think you should forget about it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not rewrite the dictionary or eliminate words from the lexicon. Asarelah (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The incredibly/increasingly muddled arguments being thrown about now all seem to be culminating in wanting the word "anti-semite' to disappear from the English language itself. Since this is beyond the purview of Wikipedia, I think it's more than safe to just ignore the whole suggestion. FlaviaR (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cohanim DNA?

All mention regarding Cohanim DNA should be removed? as it is too specific to prove anything as Cohanim are a group and not representative of the general population. If Cohanim DNA is used as a yardstick then I point out that the Bantu Lemba tribe of South Africa has a higher percentage of their population able to trace direct decent to the Biblical Israelites (through Cohanim DNA) than the Sephardi and Ashkenazi combined. Does that make them more Jewish? I think not. All it proves is that they have a group descended from Cohanim the same as many other populations. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV problems

I've tried to clean this up but keep getting reverted by editors who have a natural bias. I got some support but it needs to be worked out here instead of with reverts having nothing in comments.
1: "is frequently cited to malign modern Jews as not actually being Israelites and/or to undermine Israeli claims to territory"
This language is unnecessarily inflammatory as it implies evil intent which is not always the case. This is not an article on Israel so it is not appropriate to single out this use of the theory in isolation.
2: "Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here:"
Is the bracketed phrase in the original quote? No? Then it shouldn't be in it.
3: "It is important to note that Khazarian DNA has not yet been used to compare Jewish genes with that of the Khazars."
This negates the entire DNA section which is no more than speculation and genetic studies on a small subgroup that is not indicative of the general population to give a conclusion to support a specific POV.
If you can argue the case for reverting any of these without compromising NPOV, please do. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the best solution to this debate is to move the entire thing to a page of its own, and include a brief summary and cross-reference here. Claims are made of connections between the Khazars and this or that modern ethnic group, but the evidence is apparently either inconclusive or absent. We can have a stable article on the Khazars without subjecting it to reversion wars. If the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory is given its own page, it will be clear that it is a theory, not an "established fact" (whatever 'that' means). If, then, someone else wants to pull together all the discussions about connections between the Khazars and some 'other' ethnic group, like one of those named in the present article, let them. I think it will all make for interesting reading. It should not be absent from Wikipedia entirely - just moved off this page. Any other thoughts, anyone? Cbdorsett (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with a separate page - it might serve to take some of the noise off this page - I do have to say that I think the move will be seen to more enshrine the theory as a fact, not the other way around. FlaviaR (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Genetics can always be moved back here when the issue is definately settled. Until then the subject is only worth a short summary here and is best left to an article of it's own detailing the current state of research. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to move the debate about Khazar-Ashkenazi theory into its own article. This article should focus on the Khazars not on any possible descendants. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. moving the "debate" (not really much of one, actually) to a separate article serves no purpose whatsoever. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed with Brian. Splitting this off would constitute both a content fork and a POV fork. Obviously against guidelines and completely pointless. According to any reliable source I've seen, this isn't a debate, it's a footnote, and it's not going to pass muster with the wider community. Call an RfC to examine the (reliable) sources if anyone really thinks that they're in contention. Daniel^C/_T+ 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Daniel is correct. Firstly, there really is no "debate". Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight there may be issues ascribing any validity to the alternate hypothesis. Forking it off to its own article would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and I fear the only purpose would be to "hide" well-cited, reliable, verifiable information that certain editors find discomfiting, which is against every core policy we have. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Briangotts, Daniel and Avi, the proposed new article would be a POV fork in violation of the NPOV policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Briangotts, Daniel, Avi, and 6SJ7. The proposed content fork and POV fork is a non-starter. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting moving the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory into its own article. The problem is only with a section for the genetic evidence as it is used here to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given. Forking does not apply as there have been no genetic studies that have reached a conclusion for the general population so it is innapropriate to have so much material (no matter gow well-cited, reliable and verifiable which no one disputes) included in this page. A short paragraph is far more appropriate. I remind Avi of WP:NPA. I have no personal bias as my editing history will show. I also can say "certain editors find this discomfiting, which is against every core policy we have". This is proven not by the reinstatement of the section but by the deletion of the well-cited, reliable and verifiable fact that Jewish and Kazar DNA (with the exception of a small subgroup) has not been compared yet when it was added to the section as a qualifier in preference to removing the section. A RFC for content relevance is pointless as it would be defeated by WP:COI so how do we resolve this? Wayne (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss, you claim you have "no personal bias as my editing history will show". Yet your edits indicating that Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 attacks,[1], were culpable in the Liberty Incident,[2], and that David Irving is a legitimate historian (see [3] among many edits), as well as your passionate defense of Ernst Zundel, insisting he was railroaded and had a legitimate refugee claim (see multiple statemente here, and your various edits to Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles indicate a confluence of interests that is unmistakable. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Way to twist facts to support your own POV Jayjg .

• You forgot to link to the other similar 9/11 edits I did showing Israel could not be responsible. That one edit was a fact indicating others might use it to reach that conclusion not me making a claim.
• How does that reply to another editor on the liberty talk page imply any view at all?
• Irving? I never claimed he was a "legitimate" historian. I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.
• Zundle? Nowhere did I support his views. If you read the previous edit I made I said Zundle was "an idiot with rediculous ideas". Point out a single thing in that post that is not factual and NPOV.
  In fact the edits you highlight are all indicative of NPOV and it is extremely offensive to have such accusations made against me especially seeing as you apparently had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything remotely controversial you could use to accuse me of something. I expect an apology for such a blatant personal attack for no other reason than to discredit me as an editor because you don't agree with me. Wayne (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the ethical and historical absurdity of "testing" the legitimacy of ethnic lineage of a group through DNA testing, I'm fine with mentioning the assertion along with the overwhelming evidence against it on this page; but I would have to see a lot of material from remotely reliable sources to see how it could justify its own articles. Whether or not it's a POV fork is almost beside the point as long as there is so little substance behind it. I can't even imagine the ugliness that would ensue if various conflicting parties in the Middle East got into DNA pissing contest, so at a minimum we should treat this one with care and seriousness. --Leifern (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Leifern has it right. Acknowledge that there's a dispute, give each side fair due, but the idea of having a section about DNA testing is basically a non-starter; it's already quite clear that the theory is rubbish, no point in saying, "Though the theory has been confirmed as rubbish, there is still one test that has not been done to reconfirm its rubbishiness." We just don't write articles that way. IronDuke 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone going off on a tangent instead of replying to the reason for dropping the DNA section? Relevance to the article (in it's current detail). Fork is irrelevant as dropping a section has nothing to do with Forking. If you can prove relevance then the section can stay. If not then it goes. It can't get more simple than that. Wayne (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a large majority of the people commenting on this issue think the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before. So far the "consensus" is due to WP:COI and WP:POV. You can't just say it's relevant and call that consensus so I ask again. Explain why it is relevant or recuse. Wayne (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevance is that, because of the anthropological musings of Koestler (a non-historian with no access to DNA studies), so much of the discourse relating to the Khazars over the last 30 years has been tied to their alleged ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry. That is exactly the reason that these DNA studies were originally conducted; their findings are extremely relevant. The detail is necessary to support the validity of those findings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the studies have been limited to Cohanim DNA which is irrelevant because "it is not indicative of the general population". The studies are I believe further skewed (I could be wrong) as Cohanim tend to marry within their own group (correct me if i'm wrong). I have no problem with other DNA testing but please explain why Cohanim DNA is relevant to this article as experts say it is not (in regards to the theory). Wayne (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Briangotts and others. I love how Leifern qualified it: "DNA pissing contest". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

As I see it, the use of DNA evidence for the history of human populations is in general perhaps the most reliable basis of evidence that actually exists, despite all of the difficulties. I do not see why it is either unethical or non-historical. It is well supported by the published material cited here (and elsewhere) (That it is used to support or deny modern political claims is another matter entirely--one could well argue about the ethics of this use.) On the other hand, it does need to be made clear that the implication with respect to the Khazars are necessarily only indirect. But some published scientific sources to that effect should be added. For those who think it known to be irrelevant, I think the burden is now on them to show that there is a majority scientific viewpoint supporting their view, because it seems the scientific consensus is just the opposite. They may well be a respectable minority viewpoint, in which case there should be appropriate discussion mention of such a position in the article, if it can be sourced. DGG (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A RS was added several times but keeps getting deleted. The majority viewpoint is that what DNA studies have been done to date are insufficient to reach a conclusion one way or the other. The problem is the article states the conclusion has been reached and is a fact. The consensus is still that the theory is discredited but it is based on other criteria. Wayne (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the majority opinion or rather, Kevin Alan Brook's on his self-published website? That's the only cite you seem to using to support your position. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Karl Skorecki, Mike Hammer and J Elkins are others who have stated that cohanim are genetically separated from the general population which makes an extrapolation problematic. Using the cohanim studies Yair Davidiy gave an analogy to illustrate it's relevance. "Red hair is inherited. If 14% of Irishmen have red hair compared to 7% of non Irish and we know that 10% of a town’s population (in Scotland) are Irish then a red haired person has a one in five chance of being Irish. While a possibility, this does not mean that the rest of the red haired people in the town are related to Irishmen". Wayne (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wayne, I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm trying to establish is if you have the RS citations to back up your contention that The majority viewpoint is that what DNA studies have been done to date are insufficient to reach a conclusion one way or the other. on the DNA, on this, the Khazar issue. If the only actual cite you have is Kevin Alan Brook's opinion on his self-published website, which doesn't mention anything about his being the "consensus position". I don't see how you're supporting that claim. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can give you the same cites used in the section but you dont understand what they say so I will put it in laymen’s terms (newspaper articles on such a technical subject are too simplified so not a good source). Karl Skorecki and Mike Hammer (the ones who did the study cited in the section) stated "cohanim are genetically separated from the general population", that they go on to extrapolate for the general population is virtually WP:synth (see Davidiy's analogy) and contrary to other expert opinions. If they are “genetically separated” then how can one groups genetic profile be applied to the other? Genetic pathologist Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin stated (Jerusalem Post Feb. 28 2001) that studies of cohanim are "problematic and arrive at conclusions that are not supported by all available data." Another problem is that the gene need not be Jewish in origin. It can also appear in unrelated groups. “Once CMH (the Cohen Haplotype) appears it is transmitted by heredity. Since Cohens are the most likely to have CMH when CMH is found amongst Jews there is a higher than average chance that the Jew is a Cohen. If therefore we come across a Jew with CMH there is a probability factor of one out of three (33.3%) that he is a Cohen”(J.E. Elkins). Then we have the DNA variation known as R1a1 which originates in central Asia. Dr. Hammer (yes the same one who did the cohanim study) believes a Turkic-speaking people of the Volga Valley is the source for it. According to the American Journal of Human Genetics (Sept 2003) 52% of Ashkenazi have this Asian variation while CMH is found in only 14.6% of Ashkenazim (and as a comparison, 15.2% of Iraqi Kurds and 9.1% of Palestinians also have the “cohen gene”). What does this mean? It means you can only come to a conclusion for the cohanim who have a considerably larger percentage of the gene (84% If i remember correctly) and it tells you very little about anyone else. It does however prove that there is no pure Khazar lineage (i.e. totally debunking the Khazar theory) while a “pure” lineage does exist for the cohens which is worth a mention but hardly the current amount and then only because it debunks the theory. The most you can say for the general population is that “the genetic results suggest that the Ashkenazim and Sephardim can trace part of their ancestry to their Israelite forbearers” and this is only relevant in the Cohanim article. This page is titled Khazars not Cohanim. Anyway, I'm not going to hang around and get in more trouble for trying to be a nuetral editor (not by you so thx for trying to discuss it). I'm done here as i no longer care if the section is relevant or not. Wayne (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship problems

People should not be deleting entries in the discussion section unless they are abusive or libelous. You have no business deciding whose comments are read or not, or someone will start deleting yours as well. GuyInCT (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating

Dating on this article has always been CE/BCE rather than AD/BC. Per MOS, it is inappropriate to change the dates to AD. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{{6com}}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Origins and prehistory section is completely uncited. At the least, the paragraphs all need a citation. I thik the (suishu, 84) in the second paragraph is supposed to be a Harvard cite, but I'm not sure as there is no Suishu listed in the References.
• Rise section, Formation subsection, first paragraph needs a citation. So do the third, fourth and fifth.
• Same section and subsection. I know you oriented the location in the lede, but it would not hurt to state wher the Gokturk EMpire was located.
• Same section and subsection, consider merging a the last three paragraphs together to eliminate the choppy feel to the prose here.
• Same section and subsection, the last paragraph and sentence of the paragraph, are the Gok Turks the same as the Gokturk earlier?
• Khazars and Byzantium subsection is uncited.
• Second Khazar-Arab war subsection is uncited.
• A stylistic issue is the use of parenthetical comments. They are used alot and may be overused. Consider cutting down on them so the prose feels less chopped up.
• Khazar religion section, Turkic shamanism section is uncited and needs to be cited.
• Same section, Conversion subsection, first paragraph, last part of the paragraph is uncited and needs to be cited.
• Same section and subsection, second paragraph, last sentences need to be cited.
• Same section and subsection, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs are uncited. Also, the fourth paragraph has what I assume is a direct quote at "...writings as 'bastards'..." which needs to be directly attributed with a citation on the quotation.
• Same section and subsection, seventh paragraph is uncited and needs to be.
• Same section and subsection, last paragraph, last sentence needs to be cited.
• Same section, other religions subsection needs source citation.
• Government section, all the subsectios are uncited and need them
• Economic position section, trade is uncited, and Khazar coinage needs a citation on the first paragraph.
• Extent section, probably need citations.
• Decline and fall section is totally uncited, and definitely needs them. Especially the very last paragraph where there is a direct quotation.
• Khazars outside Khazaria and Late references are also uncited. There is a large direct quotation in the Late references section that is unattributed.
• The Resources section should be broken into either 'References" which are used in the citations, and "Further reading" which is information not used in the article but that is significant scholarship. Also, both should be in the format of last name first for ease of finding sources.
• Im unsure what the Eastern Hemisphere adds to the article that isn't in the map right above it. Consider getting rid of it.Same for the big world map down in the extent of influence section, the important parts are covered in the other map in that section.Same for the 1025 Eastern hemisphere map .. it's covered in the 1015 map above it.The article is already map heavy, without duplicating time frame maps

I'm failing this article on the grounds of lack of citations under criteria 2. Without having citations to large chunks of the information, it looks like OR, so it fails under both 2b and 2c. A quick glance at the sources listed, they seem to be reliable, but since most of the article is unsourced, it's hard to say that the whole thing meets 2a too. I also didn't get too much into 1a, so I'm leaving that as a unknown. It is broad and it follows the Manual of Style reasonably well. I didn't notice any edit wars and it seemed to be fairly neutral, although I did not dig into it deeply.

If someone disagrees with my review, please feel free to discuss it on the article talk page, on my talk page, or bring the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment Ealdgyth | Talk 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

I find myself agreeing with the assessment above: this is never a GA. It may contain the raw material for one, but that's not the same. Someone will need to sit down with this article and completely re-arrange the material into some sort of logical order. The article is littered with about a dozen maps of various descriptions scattered without rhyme or reason. How about doing a chronological h2 section on "History", chronologically, separate from other h2 topics like "religion" or "government". dab (𒁳) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)