Talk:Khazars

Removed material

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

Theories concerning the origins of the Khazars may be divided into those based on Uyghur, Hun, and Transoxiana origins. These theories are described in further detail in the following section. Gurjar-Hunnish origin A Hunnish origin has also been postulated, particularly as an Akatziroi tribe, by such scholars as Omeljan Pritsak and Aleksandr Gadloch. Khazars are mentioned after the fall of the Hunnic Attila Empire in 454. Since the Hun empire was not ethnically homogeneous, this proposal is not necessarily in conflict with others. Transoxiana origin Dmitri Vasilyev of Astrakhan State University recently hypothesized that the Khazars moved in to the Pontic steppe region only in the late 6th century and originally lived in Transoxiana. According to Vasilyev, Khazar populations remained behind in Transoxiana under Pecheneg and Oghuz suzerainty, possibly remaining in contact with the main body of their people. Diter Ludwig claims that Khazars were driven out of the region by the rising Hephthalites. In September 2008, Vasilyev reported findings in Samosdelka that he thought represented a medieval Jewish capital. Dr. Simon Kraiz, an expert on Eastern European Jewry at the University of Haifa, pointed out that no Khazar writings have been found: "We know a lot about them, and yet we know almost nothing: Jews wrote about them, and so did Russians, Georgians, and Armenians, to name a few. But from the Khazars themselves, we have nearly nothing." Others Some scholars in the former Soviet Union considered the Khazars to be an indigenous people of the North Caucasus, mostly Nakh peoples. They argued that the name khazar comes from the Chechen language, meaning beautiful valley.

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

Origins & Language and Language

As most of you know, there are two sections which are quite similiar. One of them, being Languages, is not even sourced. What is to be done about this? Al Khazar 06:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar (talk • contribs)

The Ashkenazim section is absurd

The section about the connection between Ashkenazim and the Khazars is absurd because it is mostly devoted to debunking the connection. By connecting the idea strictly with British Israelism and other right-wing ideas, this page dismisses the entire idea. Not everyone agrees on this of course, but this NPOV should be removed or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.216 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The last study done, the once referenced (December 2012, Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Elhaik ), should be expanded, instead of all this defamatory stuff that serves only to try and discredit an idea that science offers plenty of source material for.MickeyDonald (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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