Talk:Khazars/Archive 1

message: Mention should be made of Pavic's book Dictionary of the Khazars.  128.196.226.101 17:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, in Khazars in fiction. --Briangotts 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary of the Khazars 

message: How many of today's Jews are actually descended from the Khazars? -- SJK
: I am not sure if anyone knows. I do know that there were some interesting biological tests done which showed that there has been much less intermarriage and conversion than anyone had previously imagined. Some scientists compared some biological traits that were markers for certain genes, specifically the fingerprint whorls, and found that most of today's modern day Jews matched the patterns for biological descendents of middle-eastern semites. There is an article on this (explaining the test, and logic of the arguement) entitled "Who are the Jews" by Jared Diamon, in "Natural History", volume 102, No. 11, Nov. 1993.  RK
If Khazars really converted to Judaism and took the apellation, "Son of Abraham," then they really were Jews -- and their descendents really are Jews.  I am sure that in the long history of the Children of Israel, many many people have been adopted into the family -- and it would be wrong, both morally and legally, to consider them any less members of the family.  
: [ Sorry if this is an innapropriate way to comment, but the above comment is rude.  Stating that not accepting Khazars into the Jewish community is     morally and legally wrong, is morally and legally wrong to those Jews who believe that rabbinical Judaism has no right to try to own the definition of the  word.  This seems horribly POV.] Oemb1905 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is kind of you to be so concerned that everyone be polite/respectful, but it didn't seem rude to me, & certainly not anti-Jewish/Judaism, since s/he started out with "If Khazaras really converted..." If anything, the poster was upholding the right of Jews to determine who is a Jew. This is, in fact, the standard answer I give to Usenet trolls who try to trot out this discredited theory as a way of pretending that Jews aren't Jews, etc.FlaviaR (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Genetically, it is now known that between 70 and 80 percent of paternal Ashkenazi lineages are from the Middle East, and that these lineages are related to Palestinian Arabs, Kurds, Anatolian Turks, Armenians, Syrians, and Lebanese.  This leaves only about 25 percent of lineages which come from other sources (like Slavic and Khazar). The Eu 19 chromosomes are among the markers for a East-European as opposed to Israelite paternal lineage, and it is found among about 13 percent of Ashkenazi Jewish men.  See the study by the Israeli scientist Ariella Oppenheim and her colleagues, "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001): 1095-1112.  In maternal lineages the Slavic and/or Khazar components may be more significant than in the paternal lineages. Alexander Beider's book "A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names" (2001) goes into a lot of detail about the Slavic-speaking Jews who lived in the Lithuanian Grand Duchy before the Yiddish-speaking Jews merged with them.  They had East Slavic names like Kasper, Bogdan, Bogdana, Golosh, Ryzhko, Samodelka, Il'ya, and Domanya.  Beider concluded that while we can't tell for sure, some of these East Slavic Jews could have been part-Khazar.  But he also presents evidence that the Slavic Jews were numerically inferior to the Yiddish Jews.  So historical and genetic evidence coincide. -- KAB 
The foregoing comment contains a serious misinterpretation of the literature it cites. Neither the authors of the cited study, nor any other responsible geneticist, has claimed an unambiguous identification of the geneticc ancestry of the Ashkenazim. There are conflicting reports in the scientific literature, which should serve as a warning to any skeptical person. Ruling out the Khazars as an ancestral population (or at any rate one of them) would requires detailed studies with populations that may be descended from or related to the Khazars - these have not been done.
The above interesting quote does not make it clear that the same genetic fact may be said for almost anyone with European ancestry since it has been proven Europeans have a near-eastern genetic origin. This is besides the only really interesting relevant results ironically being for male lines which are not recognised by predominant "Jewish" law as valid lines of descent. Maybe Khazars are in part perhaps a bit of red-herring but the Avar case seems -much to the disappointment of a few Hungarian nationalists- to hold some answers User:Zestauferov
"Genetically, it is now known that between 70 and 80 percent of paternal Ashkenazi lineages are from the Middle East". I have seen this claim before but have never seen any study or research sited. It is probably too emotionally charged for anyone to do a real, independent study. However, the most likely descendants of the ancient Hebrews are the Jews of North Africa, Persia, Athens, and Rome. Those are the places that had large diaspora populations of Hebrews even before the destruction of the Temple. The Ashkenazic Jews might not be the least likely, but they are certainly not the most likely. GuyInCT 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: Dear friends, maybe you know already that there is an online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe available. Regards Gangleri 11:38, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
:It appears that that site may contravene copyright laws; perhaps it's best to avoid it. Jayjg 05:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I raised was aiding and abetting copyright violation, not the books contents or conclusions. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I wasn't really responding to you, but to an edit made to the article by someone else. He made a bunch of edits at once, including removing Koestler's book from the References section. Sorry I wasn't clear. Isomorphic 21:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Koestler's book was totally unscientific, and is not a valid source to cite. Its "theories", such as they are, have long since been disproven by genetic testing. His historical sections were plaigarized wholesale from Dunlop, whose work is cited here. --Briangotts 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe 

message: Incidentally, while some people are paying attention to this article I'd like to point out the Khazaria article.  I'm not sure how material should be distributed between Khazars and Khazaria, but the two should be a bit better integrated, or maybe even merged. Isomorphic 21:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that maybe the information on rulers should go into the Khazaria article.  There's a lot there, and it's a ibt overwhelming where it is, but Khazaria is a shorter article and it might help flesh it out. Isomorphic 21:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea at all. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, on second thought, now I'm thinking we should wait until Briangott finishes completely re-writing this article, and then re-visit the question. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have merged the articles in question. Thanks for bringing the Khazaria article to my attention. --Briangotts 03:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/redistribute 

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

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

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

message: Um, yes, there is controversy. Certainly some anti-Jewish groups use Khazar descent as a propaganda tool, but that doesn't mean it's false.  While the Khazars do not make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline as was once claimed, it is near certain that at least a few Khazars went to Europe.  There's no historical record of genocide, and they didn't just vanish into thin air, so lots of Khazars went somewhere.  The question is to what extent the Khazars mixed with the rest of the Jewish community. Isomorphic 05:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that there is major controversy among scholars;  rather, that there is a lot of politics and strong feelings around the issue.  After all, you just finished calling the whole thing a myth propagated by neo-nazis.  I wouldn't really call Arthur Koestler a neo-nazi, considering that he was Jewish and actually thought (for some reason) that if he could show that Ashkhenazi Jews were not actually Hebrews, it would reduce antisemitism. Isomorphic 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Arthur Koestler's book was widely read, and is still one of only three books on the Khazars in my college library.  So the Khazar-origin theory quite is well-known.  Is that what you meant? Isomorphic 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Guy is pointing out that the only people who push Koestler's theory are non-scientists with an agenda.  Which, now that I think of it, applies perfectly to Koestler himself. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think anybody mainstream thinks that the Khazars make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline.  However, there is serious support for the Khazars being a non-trivial minority.  Kevin Alan Brook believes this, for example. Isomorphic 21:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, at least on the male side. The problem is it's really hard to figure out what percentage that "non-trivial minority" actually is, as we don't have any examples of Khazar DNA. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I was just clarifying that the issue isn't completely closed, that it's not just a fringe theory, and that it's appropriate to mention it.  Even Koestler's theory wasn't ridiculous when he proposed it, it just doesn't appear to be true given modern research. Isomorphic 22:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Koestler's book wasn't serious work.  He had an agenda, and he mostly plagiarized actual historians. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never said his book was good.  Just that the theory, at the time, wasn't ridiculous. Anyway, this is veering into side discussion.  I think nobody objects to the current wording. Isomorphic 22:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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

message: the one used in the article or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Chasaren.jpg ? 02:49, 14 August 2005 172.177.50.53
*The one used currently shows some polities not shown on the German map, though the German one is MUCH nicer on the eyes. What is the source of the German map? I'm also not sure about the propriety of putting a German map on an English Wikipedia article. I have added a link to the map though and am interested to see what others think. --Briangotts (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make sense to edit it and translate the terms, if anyone is up to it.  Or find the source, and ask them to.  It's a nice map. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a look on the german history of the article will show the source. The image was drawn by a german wikipedian. Formerly we used a much worse map, based on english material, which was translated step by step when drawing the first sketch of the map. If I were you, of course I would translate the tribes from german to english. 172.180.112.37 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which map is better 

message: Please do not bring the "date crusade" to this article, particularly with the claim that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras requires either AD or the absence of CE.
In fact, MOS states: 
:Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.
--Briangotts (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date crusade 

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

message: It is stated in this article that 'The Khazar theory has been adopted by many anti-Zionists, especially in the Arab world; such proponents of the theory argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar in origin, then they would be exempt from God's promise of Canaan to Israelites as recorded in the Bible, were one to ignore that the promise also applies to converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi.'
This is only part of a two-pronged argument, using the Khazar theory. The cited example uses the Khazar theory *in conjunction* with Religious Zionist Logic (i.e. that God promised Palestine to the Children of Israel) and is probably the least used part of the argument.
The part of the argument using the Khazar theory which is probably the most popular is designed to counter a fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago and therefore have some genetic claim to the land right now. In arguing that the majority of Ashkenazim (and thereby the majority of Israeli Jews) are not genetically related to Semitic Jews of ancient History, but to the Eastern Khazars, an attempt is made to discredit the racist Zionist argument. 
It would be nice to see this page accurately reflect this anti-racist use rather than an attempt to counter the patently ridiculous religious justification.- Sign your name in the future
:Give me a Break, the "fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago"?, take your rants elsewere.  Are you trying to suggest that we never really lived in the land? Did you miss your David Duke meeting or something and decided to take your frustration out on us? And in the future sign your name after a comment, it makes it really confusing if you don't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ad hominem attacks and quoting out of context are not particuarly helpful.  He wasn't saying that the belief that they lived there was fundamentally racist, but rather that using that belief as an argument for Zionism was.  I would urge you to be more civil in your discourse. Generic69 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With all due respect, dear Generic69, it is wrong to blame MCHS for being uncivil after the anon adopting a popular notion among anti-Semites "Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar" and repeating allegations of Zionism being racist, which was rescinded even by the unreformed UN. The applicable policy here is WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The applicable policy is the incivility of Mr. Al-Silverburg.  If a user wants to express his opinion on a talk page in the context of making a suggestion about changes to the article that's well within his rights.  Generic69 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NPA means discussing the argument and not the person. While I agree that MCHS could have chosen a nicer language, the original post should not be overlooked. This is not only about "being nice". I someone uses/supports/spreads antisemitic allegations, I don't see a problem calling their arguments antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Added some indents to make clearer who posted what. Play nice, children :) PiCo 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [I think we should test the bloodline of every Jewish person in the world.  Let's notify the Bet Din, so we can solve all of this Bull S__t!" Oemb1905 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionist Opinion 

message: apparently, pure-blooded hebrews aren't khazars, and pure-blooded khazars aren't hebrews. however, logically hebrews and khazars could have interbred.
reportedly, before their conversion to judaism, the khazars didn't use the hebrew language. this makes me wonder: how familiar were they with the hebrew language before they actually adopted it as their language? and if they were familiar with it before they adopted it, for how long before were they familiar with it?
Gringo300 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously, archeology must be a very frustrating job. Gringo300 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the Soviets purposely flooded the Khazar site that had the most intact artifacts, Sarkel, and that Atil too is supposedly underwater now, I imagine that Khazar archeology is even more frustrating than most other types... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hebrews and khazars 

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

text: Only if you assume that there was a time when there were no Jews at all living there, AND that all Jews are descended from the Khazars, AND that somebody else had a prior claim to unoccupied lands there. Cbdorsett 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AND if you insist you have a better right than Jews to decide who is/not a Jew, AND if you refuse the right of ONLY ONE country, out of all the countries in the world, to decide her own rules for citizenship. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "Palestine" to refer to Israel & not Jordan to accept that Israel has any of the normal rights of any other country.FlaviaR (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov quote 

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

message: I hate to nitpick a really good article, but the Map of the World c. 820 seems a wee bit fanciful. Tibet includes Burma in one vast empire? Sez 'oo? Nice to see the Thais get so much space, but I don't think it's quite right. I think the map is a valient attempt at the unattainable. PiCo 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the World c. 820 

message: The 2006 article cited in the front paragraph describing Jewish DNA patterns (http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf) seems to be inconsistent with what is written about Jewish DNA patterns in that paragraph ("Current genetic studies show that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from Middle Eastern populations whereas studies that take into account mtDNA show no relation to middle eastern ethnic groups."). If you read the article, you will find that the four females which the mtDNA trace back to are "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" (pg 7, though they are all marked as 000 for some reason). The abstract states that nearly half of Ashkenazi Jews, numbering about 8,000,000, can be traced back to these four females. This strand of mtDNA is virually absent in other population though it exists in low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews.
This seemingly false conclusion could have been drawn from this website, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html, the first one that comes up when searching for "Jewish Y-DNA" on google: "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally." However, in further review, the second website that comes up under this google seach, http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html (interestingly, part of the same host site), quotes "Recent genetic studies, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe," an abstract from a bioanthro article at http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf.
From this evidence, can we conclude that evidence from both mtDNA and Y-DNA studies shows that at least half of all contemporary Ashkenazi Jews are decendants from Hebrew/Levantine peoples? Somebody with a better background in genetics might be able to help.
Slubin 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True; DNA testing is still largely in its infancy, and it's important to note that these results are entirely TENTATIVE and in no way DEFINITIVE. --172.144.96.186 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish mtdna and y-dna inconsistency 

message: I removed the following:
[i]The original Jewish settlers were joined by waves of immigration fleeing antisemitism|persecution in the Byzantine Empire, Sassanid Iran|Persia (particularly during the Mazdak revolts), and later within the Islamic world.[/i]
The reasons for the removal are:
::(1) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in the Byzantine Empire. While there may have been times when this might have been the case, at this time, there is no source to confirm that info and;
::(2) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in Persia. Again, while there might have been times of such events, at the time in question, there is no source to confirm said info and;
::(3) There is nothing in Wikipedia regarding the "Mazdak revolts" and;
::(4) There is no information that at this time there were waves of Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in the Islamic world. In fact, at this point in history up until the 20th century, Jews were close to their Semitic breathren, the Arabs, and rode forward with the Islamic expansion taking existing markets from those that would not convert and establishing themselves into new markets as well.
:::::In fact, according to "A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times", by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1909), Persians in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr. Parkes's account: There is no doubt that the ... Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p. 81).
:::::Further, according to "The Position of Jews in Arab lands following the rise of Islam" by Merlin Swartz, "Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies."
:::::Lastly, according to Elliot B. Lefkovitz, Ph.D., Adjunct Prof. of History, Loyola Univ. and Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, ""After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church became the most powerful force in Europe. In the early Middle Ages, the Jews lived fairly peacefully with their Christian neighbors. Many Jews became merchants. Others practiced trades or owned land. Many Christians respected the Jews for their contributions to society."
::Therefore, the deleted information is merely original research and violates the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. As always, if someone can post references contesting the above information, please, as a courtesy, let me know and make the necessary change. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion in "Conversion to Judaism and relations with world Jewry" section 

message: The question to me, seems to be, who, really, are the khazars to begin with?  most of the sensitive ethnic debates on this issue, stem from post-kingdom questions about whether the Khazars were ethnically distinct and converted, or were actually Jews themselves, or both.  we should however, try to research and expand the "relation to world Jewry" section since Jews were banned from Jerusalem in 135 CE and it is entirely likely that communities moved into these areas.  certainly, they had to pass them on their way out of JErusalem and into Europe, in order to become what we now know as Ashkenazim.  at any rate, it seems clear that much like the ancient hebrews came into Canaan and assimilated Canaanite culture into their own, but took over, so to the Jews who fled Jerusalem, met up with Jewish communities from antiquity, and perhaps their large presence had an effect much like that of the Hebrews on the land of Canaan. 
Regarding the portion of genes that modern ashkenazim share with the khazars .... first of all, to some, if they converted, it does not matter.  second, to some, many of the jews migrated through africa, france, and spain, and then after france kicked the jewsish people out in the 12th or 13th century and then spain and portugal in 1492, and 1512? ..., then the Jews migrated Northwards into Poland, which as the perrenial underdog European state, was happy to take many Jews at different times in its history.  clearly, the anti-Jewish theory that Khazars, a distinct non-Jewish race, converted, and thus all Jews, are thereby non-Jewish, fails.  however, it can, and has, been shown by many scholars that the Khazars were both inlfuenced by Jewish people, and inlfuenced Jewish culture.  
the main rub:  have we adequately addressed how much the second temple destruction might have contributed to the development of the turkic, khazaric, people in the first place?  as in, before history all of a sudden records there being khazars ...
:We should also keep an eye on converting to Judaism as happened in the Maghreb. Wandalstouring 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and to be clear, it was the Akkadians who kicked out the royal house of Israel in 73_ BC (?) (meaning the Northern Kingdom of the First Kingdom in this context), and the Akkadian Empire held parts of what we sometimes refer to as Khazari land ... Oemb1905 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  who, really, are the khazars to begin with? 

message: An alternative opinion to that featured in the article regarding the name Khazar, derives it from the hebrew verb Chazar (Hebrew: חזר), meaning returned, a common way in hebrew to describe Jews who readmited Jewish religious obligations upon themselves.
Do you think that this opnion should be featured in the article and if yes, where? Tomer Ish Shalom 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, unless it can be referenced to a legitimate source. I have spent years researching the Khazars and I have never come across this explanation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, you are obviously scholarly and erudite, but you oftentimes do not hold yourself to the same standards of Wiki authorship that you demand of others ..." Oemb1905 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midrash Shem 

message: I removed 
"A disproportionate number of Karaite Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and if these were the descendants of Khazars as suggested by some, genetic studies for these purposes are invalidated."
In fact, the Karaite communities of Crimea and Lithuania (and, for that matter, Germany) were NOT targeted by the Nazis for extermination. So how is the number killed "disproportionate"? Disproportionate compared to what?
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is mixing up things I suppose. Wandalstouring 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karaites in Lithuania?  Was that term used just to mean non-rabbinical?  I thought the term came from the communities of North Africa?  Innocent question, let me know, Mr. Brian ... Oemb1905 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karaites and the Holocaust 

message: Re. Humus_sapiens' abuse of adminship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
"Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" cited a year 2000 paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics to try to substantiate this article's position that Ashkenazim are not decended from the Khazars.
The cited reference has been superceeded by an October 2003 paper in the same journal that supports the opposite conclusion. 
Humus_sapiens - Why are you a) removing these edits without reading or commenting in the discussion page and b)why do you respond to every edit with a claim of vandalism?  I'm not 'vandalizing'.  I'm editing and citing reputable sources.  Wikipedia and this article are not your personal property.  If you can not maintain a neutral point of view, you should be removed as an administrator.
The article also makes the claim or implies in several places that disputing the origin of the Ashkenazi as being entirely from the Near East amounts to anti-semetism.  This is an obvious slur and needs to be removed.  Please note that several of the authors of the 2003 paper are from Israel, at Israeli institutions.  
Note that - I now see that some of these references to anti-semitism have been changed to anti-zionism, which I see as a positive first step in bringing some much needed objectivity to this WP article.     
Here's the citation. --> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries
Doron M. Behar, Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, Michael F. Hammer, Ekaterina Bulygina, Dror Rosengarten, Abigail L. Jones, Karen Held, Vivian Moses, David Goldstein, Neil Bradman, and Michael E. Weale
Am J Hum Genet. October 2003; 73(4): 768–779. Published online September 17, 2003.
Despite the 'Multiple Origins' wording of the title, the body of the article states that nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY), specificlly the R1a1 NRY is not consistent between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, indicating the male lines at least derive from different gene pools.
From the cited article --> "... Ashkenazi Levites have a high frequency of a distinctive, non–Near Eastern haplogroup." {R1a1}
From the cited article --> "the haplogroup {R1a1} is extremely rare in other Jewish groups and in non-Jewish groups of Near Eastern origin, but is found at high frequency in populations of eastern European origin."
From the cited article --> "it would be a remarkable coincidence that the geographic origins and demographic expansion of the Ashkenazi are within Northern and Eastern Europe and that this haplogroup is found at very high frequency within neighboring non-Jewish populations of European origin but not at high frequency elsewhere. An alternative explanation, therefore, would postulate a founder(s) of non-Jewish European ancestry, whose descendents were able to assume Levite status.
From the cited article --> "Intriguingly, the Sorbian tongue, relexified with a German vocabulary, has been proposed as the origin of Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazim, but there has been no suggestion of an association between Ashkenazi Levites in particular and the Sorbian language. One attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century (Dunlop 1967). This kingdom flourished between the years 700 c.e. and 1016 c.e. It extended from northern Georgia in the south to Bulgar on the Volga River in the north and from the Aral Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west—an area that falls within a region in which haplogroup R1a1 NRYs are found at high frequency (Rosser et al. 2000). Archival material also records migration of Khazars into the Hungarian Duchy of Taskony in the 10th century. The break-up of the Khazar Empire following their defeat by invading Rus led to the flight of some Khazars to central and northern Europe."
About the article in general, why Humus_sapiens, are there self referencing citations in the article?
I've edited "Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" again.  I replaced the citation of the 2000 American Journal of Human Genetics re. paternally inherited Y chromosome paper with the citation for of the 2003 paper from the same journal and appearently some of the same researchers on the same topic.  I ammended the openning sentence to reflect the different findings regarding the R1a1 NRY haplogroup in the more recent study.  I left the reference to the origin of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).  I believe this is a fair representation of the available research. 
 
The openning sentences now read "Genetic studies indicate that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome DNA originated in Eastern European populations, [6] Other studies indicate that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population are derived from the Near East.[7]."
Please respond civilly and leave the vandalism charge out.  Thanks ColumbanAgain 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely misrepresented the source cited. This study was only about Levite Ashkenazim, not about Ashkenazim in general. In addition, the Khazar link that in the opinion of the authors could explain the high incidence of R1a1 amoing Ashkenazi Levites was only the speculation of the authors rather their finding. Beit Or 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the table http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180600&rendertype=table&id=TB1
you can see that the only groups in the study that approach the same rate of expression for R1a1 are the only Eastern Europeans (Sorb and Belarussian) in the study.  Hence the speculation of European origins.  Re. Levites, in Jewish tradition Levites are, "considered to be those male descendants of Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob and paternal ancestor of Aaron. ... Male descendants of men who were not Jews at birth could be Israelites but not Cohanim or Levites."  The point is that the research refutes the traditional origin of the Levite caste and indicates European, not Near East orgins.  The focus of the paper is on Levites because "Levites would be expected to display lower gene diversity of NRY haplotypes than would Israelites", given the tradition that traces the male line of the caste back to Israel.  The fact that the research contradicts the tradition throws doubt on the traditional story as to the origins of the male Levite line.  Sticking soley to the traditional story and ignoring the cited paper is not fairly representing the situation.  
In the absence of more research, (for example, looking for the prevalance of R1a1 in trans-Volga, trans-causcus populations), I left in wording that the origin issue is contentious.  To continue to throw out or ignore the citation is not an appropriate response.  If you have issues with the particular wording, try posting a rewrite.  Thanks ColumbanAgain 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: CoulmbanAgain, your claim is not supported by your source, which in any event only studied a small subgroup of Jews, the Levites, and which did not discuss Khazars. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:NOR. You're drawing your own conclusions from studies, rather than letting the authors speak for themselves, and the study you refer to references a very small and specific subgroup of Jews. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Again, the study you are promoting does not actually make the claims you are attributing to it, whereas the studies cited in the article actually do make the claims attributed to them. That is the difference between citing sources and original research. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute "Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" 

message: I don't share Lev Gumilev's theories and I recall an interview with Pletneva in which she discarded his ideas as pseudo-science. Since ArbCom seems to endorse giving appropriate coverage to fringe theories, as well as to mainstream science, I believe we should enlarge on some of his ideas: they command a certain popularity in the former USSR. Here's an excerpt from Л.Н. Гумилев. Трагедия на Каспии в X в. и "Повесть временных лет". // Литература и искусство в системе культуры. М., Наука, 1988, с. 116-122:
::"The Khazar khaganate - or, rather, a colony of the Radhanites - possessed in the 9th century immense treasures, obtained by trade in Chinese silks, Biarmian furs, and Slavic slaves. All the despots of the time supported these merchants: the Tan emperors in China, the Carolingians, the Abbasids and the Umayyads of Cordoba. The head of the merchants of Atil, known as "pekh", autocratically ruled the country, reducing the khagan (stemming from the Turkic house of Ashin) to an effective figurehead. The pekh's authority relied on the mercenaries from Gorgan. Their number fluctuated between 7,000 and 12,000; they were well trained and had superior arms. The bands of Pechenegs, Oghuz, Burtas or the Rus could not compete with these professional warriors. The Gurgan guard had one drawback: they would not slay other Muslims, their brothers-in-faith. They were good only at fighting Christians and pagans. 
::As long as Khazaria lived in peace with Baghdad, this was no major problem. In 842, the Daylamites (living along the south-western shore of the Caspian Sea) converted to Islam. By 872, they had conquered Gurgan and adjacent areas. The route from Atil through Derbent to Baghdad, so convenient for Rhadanites, was effectively barred by this new force. Between 874 and 901 China was rocked by a major rebellion, which disrupted the local economy and ruined the Khazar trade in silk. The merchants residing in China were killed. Under these circumstances, the Khazars were eager to find a force that would break the overlordship of the Daylamites in the Caspian. Such a force appeared in 909 in the shape of the Rus. They sacked the island of Abaskun, burnt down Sari, before being ousted into the sea by the Daylamites (in 913). On their way back, the Rus pillaged Shirvan and Baku, whose rulers were allied with the Khazars. 
::The Radhanites were known to abide by the rule: the defeated warriors should be executed. In their opinion, the warriors were paid for the victory and not for the defeat. When the decimated Rus' army reached Atil, they were massacred for three days. No prisoners were taken. About 30,000 troops were slain; the remainder managed to escape upstream the Volga to Bulgaria, where they were destroyed by the Bulgars. Nobody returned home from that macabre expedition."
So, the question is - should there be a separate article about the Massacre of Atil? The event which resulted in 30,000 victims clearly seems to warrant a mention in Wikipedia. I also invite everyone interested in the subject to comment on this. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there more sources? Wandalstouring 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is fairly well known and documented in secondary sources other than Gumilev, see Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus#The_raid_of_913. Gumilev's presentation of the event is obviously slanted, as he implicates Radhanites for no apparent reason, and AFAIK, no other source supplies an exact figure for the casualties. Beit Or 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gumilev is known for extensively citing primary sources, though I don't have the article handy. I agree that his interpretation is biased, but the fact of the massacre (if it happened) is notable. Gumilyov was a geographer as well as a historian. He worked in the Institute of Geography and authored several papers demonstrating that the level of the Caspian rose by five meters in the second half of the tenth century. IIRC he thought the catastrophe contributed to the downfall of Khazaria, with the sea engulfing its capital, Atil. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: CoulmbanAgain, your claim is not supported by your source, which in any event only studied a small subgroup of Jews, the Levites. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atil Massacre]] 

message: What is the significance of the last sentence in this paragraph in the article:
"Khazar armies were led by the Khagan Bek and commanded by subordinate officers known as tarkhans. A famous tarkhan referred to in Arab sources as Ras or As Tarkhan led an invasion of Armenia in 758. The army included regiments of Muslim auxiliaries known as Arsiyah, of Khwarezmian or Alan extraction, who were quite influential. These regiments were exempt from campaigning against their fellow Muslims. Early Russian sources sometimes referred to the city of Khazaran (across the Volga River from Atil) as Khvalisy and the Khazar (Caspian) sea as Khvaliskoye. According to some scholars such as Omeljan Pritsak, these terms were East Slavic versions of "Khwarezmian" and referred to these mercenaries." --Frode Inge Helland 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't parse it, too. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least a comfort :o) --Frode Inge Helland 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caspian Sea and mercenaries 

message: I've added the following to the article (at section "Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim"):
:But in 2003, The American Journal of Human Genetics published "Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries", which adds nothing to the Khazar connection, but suggests that the male line for Ashkenazi Levites has a European origin.
:The abstract of this article includes ".... Ashkenazi Levite microsatellite haplotypes within this haplogroup are extremely tightly clustered, with an inferred common ancestor within the past 2,000 years. Comparisons with other Jewish and non-Jewish groups suggest that a founding event, probably involving one or very few European men occurring at a time close to the initial formation and settlement of the Ashkenazi community, is the most likely explanation for the presence of this distinctive haplogroup found today in >50% of Ashkenazi Levites".
I don't claim to understand this new material (or the previous 2000 research) fully, hence I've not deleted anything, nor tried to meld the two portions.
I'm hoping another editor will do this (and not delete the new evidence, as I understand has happened in the past).
I'd also hope that the references to Koestler and his novel be heavily trimmed or deleted. The comments in their current form serve only to confuse readers.
PalestineRemembered 10:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely unrelated to Khazars. Beit Or 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And Levites comprise 5% of Jews at most. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 DNA evidence adds nothing to Khazar connection, but suggests European ancestry for Ashkenazi Levite males. 

message: ColumbanAgain has requested informal mediation regarding Khazars#Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim and has identified Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Briangotts as interested parties.  
I've tried to summarize the dispute on the  mediation page, and have asked a few brief questions that I hope may assist in reaching consensus.  If anyone else feels like chiming in, please feel free to post a short note in the discussion section of the mediation page.  (Alternately, hopefully once we focus the issues we can bring any proposed resolution here for a wider discussion).
Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all.  TheronJ 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation cabal request re: [[Khazars]] 

message: Perhaps Sacha Baron Cohen subscribes to the theory that most Ashkenazi Jews are originally from Khazaria since he chooses to base his famous Borat character out of Khazakhstan, which is roughly the same area that the Khazars/Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to originate from (see The Thirteenth Tribe).  --172.151.71.190 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on Brian, he totally speaks Hebrew after all!Oemb1905 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point -- there is a theory that Ashkenazi Jews originated in Khazaria (not Israel) and converted to Judaism only in the 8th-9th Centures C.E.  The western portion of Khazakhstan corresponds to historical Khazaria, so it's almost like Sacha Cohen (an Ashkenazi Jew) is poking fun at the people from the same region where Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to have originated from (and to make matters even more 'funny,' Borat is anti-Semitic).  Face it: if Borat grew a beard and had a NY accent, he'd be Jewish all the way because Sacha Cohen looks like a Caucasianized, Eastern European Jew (even though he is reported to have a Sephardic mother). --152.163.101.12 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  haha! we think alike! this was my exact impression when hearing about/after seeing the movie. the actor, Sacha Baron Cohen, has distinct semitic physical features (perfectly matching those that i've seen in the Venetian jewish ghetto, some four years ago), while the (abhominal) character portrayed by the actor is a khazar (jew or not, the character represents an ethnic khazar). after seeing this movie my uttermost personal opinion that sephardic jews don't really like the ashkenazi because of the existing  suspicion involving their khazar (turanic) ancestry (aroused by studies similar to Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe) has, at least to me, been very much confirmed. :D IleanaCosanziana 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i'll bet that sacha baron cohen never heard of any khazars, and he didnt intend that his character would portrayed as one. some people looking for small things to justify their beliefs. "hey look! sacha he's a jew and his character is a kazakh! thats a hint about ashkenazi khazar ancestry!" what a stupid thought. and no, sephardis doesn't have any grudge on ashkenazis regarding their possible khazar ancestry. Varcety 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: sorry for intruding and presenting a somewhat personal opinion, but seeing as you admitted in missing the point, i thought i should have a try at explaining that what you've missed. :) (see above) IleanaCosanziana 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You all have certainly missed that Sasha Cohen is a COMEDIAN! Hello???FlaviaR (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, and the Khazar-Jew Theory 

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

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

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

message: Ibn shapruts correspondence itself is a forgery-the work was "lost' and rediscovered by a Spanish jewish Printer about five hundred years ago.
:That theory has been debunked by every scholar from Marquart and Brutzkus, through Dunlop, to Golb and Pritsak and Brook. 10th century copies were discovered in the Cairo Genizah. Get your facts straight please. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn Shaprut and the [[Khazar Correspondence]] 

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

message: This page is being dominated by proponents of theories connecting Khazars to Judaism-this topic is abit like Ufology-but more so. The only people really interested in it are those that believe in it. Wikipedia has a policy against nonsense and yet here a highly dubious historical proposition is being presented as fact. The page should include a paragraph whereby contributors can bring counter-arguments demonstating that Jewish Khazars never existed. When all the second-hand and embellished "evidence" is stripped down very little exists to convince a serious historian that there were Judaized Khazars. Dubious theories should not be made fact for instance "Around the mid 800s burials in Khazaria began to take on a decidedly Jewish flavor. Grave goods disappeared almost altogether"-this is highly deceptive and would be well at home in Koestlers book. It suggests an agenda. No actual judaic symbols were found in the alluded graves (nor were these graves conclusively Khazar), merely the absence of weaponry-hardly proof of judaism. It should also be noted Judaism in no way forbids grave goods-another flaw in this piece of evidence. 
Proponents of the Khazar theory often talk of the Cairo Genizah-yet a quick perusal of the internet will quickly confirm that no works were found there to support this myth other than the famous "Shechter letter"-an obvious forgery by a Conservative Rabbi.
:Nothing in this rant is supported by the evidence. The Schechter Letter's authenticity is not in serious dispute.`Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgruntled anon 

message: The web is littered with references to the "Khazar face" insult by [Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople] to [Leo VI the Wise]. However, I have not been able to find a reliable affirmation of this. Does anyone know of a mention of the Khazar Face prior to the French publication of the Dictionary of the Khazars by Milorad Pavic in 1988? -Narcvs
Dunlop refers to it, and I think Barthold and Marquart as well. Milorad Pavic's book is fantasy, not history, even if it does incorporate some historical tidbits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photius may have felt a direct and personal interest in Khazaria, for possibly he was himself of KHazar extraction. So, it seems, we might best explain the epithet "Khazar-face", applied to him once in anger by the Emperor Michael III.
--Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars, p. 194 (citing Symeon Magister, ex. Bonn, 673.)
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khazar-face 

message: Whether or not Ashkenazim are "descended from Khazars" has nothing to do with whether or in what way this fact or non-fact is or isn't "used" for good or evil purposes, including any arguments one way or another concerning Zionism. I want to know what is the evidence pro and con regarding the suggested Khazar connection, not what ad hominem statements can be thrown at those who argue one way or another from the evidence and/or for and against their own agenda.
Hell's bells! There were lots of Turkic and other folks who were "converted to Judaism" in ancient times, not just Khazars. So what? 
Actually, a lot of the gene pool of the Jewish community, as in the case of other dispersed and marginalized and oppressed people, has got to be the children of of Jewish women who were raped by the Crusaders and others, because such children were not blamed for their origin and were commonly carried to term and raised as Jews. Plus, it's a mitzvah to adopt a foundling, and Jews in classical times were noted for adopting orphans of many origins; maybe that was a reaction against the Greco-Roman habit of abandoning unwanted babies, but probably just a reflection of Jewish (Judeo-Christian-Islamic, if you like) ethics. As for Jewish doctrine on the question of who is and isn't a Jew, the mainstream has always treated converts and adoptees and foundlings and their descendants as Jews, period. Falashas are black. Cochin Jews look like Cochin Brahmans. A Jewish friend of mine, whose ancestors are from Poland and were Jewish as far back as he knows of, looks to me like a Pole, period. 
All authentic Jewish tradition, in its pro-Zionist and its anti-Zionist manifestations, treats them all as Jews. So does Israel's Law of Return. If you want to argue for or against the Law of Return or for or against Zionism, you have to argue on some other basis than whether Jews, or some Jews, or most Jews, or all Jews, are descended from Midle Easterners or from anybody else---it would make no difference if they were all descended from Puerto Ricans. Descendants of Chinese Jews look like other Chinese; so, according to antique travelers, did their ancestors who practiced Judaism. 
Enough of this genetic interpretation of Jewishness. I'm against the Law of Return, and I think Palestine/Israel ought to be a single religion-blind and ethnicity-blind state, but my position is not based on arguments about who is descended from whom. I believe such arguments are the moral equivalent of racism, no matter which way they are applied.  Tom129.93.17.229 03:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop politicizing questions of fact vs. fallacy