Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Khazars/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:38, 23 October 2006 editColumbanAgain (talk | contribs)35 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 07:38, 23 October 2006 edit undoBeit Or (talk | contribs)6,093 edits rv, the discussion has been archivedNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


I didn't write the original article, but I substantially re-wrote it (with the help of several dedicated researchers) so I suppose this is a self-nom. Other than this article may be the most complete reference on the Khazars available online. --] 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) I didn't write the original article, but I substantially re-wrote it (with the help of several dedicated researchers) so I suppose this is a self-nom. Other than this article may be the most complete reference on the Khazars available online. --] 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''Object'''. The POV in the article is not balanced.
] 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Example.
"Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" cited a 2000 paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics to try to substantiate the articles 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. Misplaced Pages 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."

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."


* '''Comment''' I haven't read the article yet, but the lead section seems way too short to adequately describe the entire article, especially when you consider the length of the TOC. Is there a suitable image to use for the lead? The map further down is helpful to those of us who aren't familiar with the region. ] 15:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) * '''Comment''' I haven't read the article yet, but the lead section seems way too short to adequately describe the entire article, especially when you consider the length of the TOC. Is there a suitable image to use for the lead? The map further down is helpful to those of us who aren't familiar with the region. ] 15:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:38, 23 October 2006

Khazars

I didn't write the original article, but I substantially re-wrote it (with the help of several dedicated researchers) so I suppose this is a self-nom. Other than Kevin Brook's Khazaria Info Center this article may be the most complete reference on the Khazars available online. --Briangotts 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I haven't read the article yet, but the lead section seems way too short to adequately describe the entire article, especially when you consider the length of the TOC. Is there a suitable image to use for the lead? The map further down is helpful to those of us who aren't familiar with the region. slambo 15:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Lots of information there but the structure is horrible seriously needs work. As mentionned above, the lead section is too short, and the table of contents is enourmous. There are several subsections that contain but two or three sentences. Phils 16:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "Structure needs work" would have gotten your POV across without resorting to hyperbole. Personally I think the extensive TOC helps access the information quicker, and I wish more Misplaced Pages articles were so painstakingly organized. --Dzimmer6 18:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. My apologies to the author. I cannot agree with you about the TOC: although I agree more articles should use subheadings, this TOC is longer than it need be. It is not the length of the TOC per se that bothers me, but the fact that sections like "Byzantine, Georgian and Armenian sources", "Date of the conversion", "Extent of the conversion", which are comprised of 3 or 4 sentences take a place in the TOC. I know whether they deserve this place or not is subjective, but if you look at the way most of our best articles are organized, you'll see such minor items usually do not appear in the TOC. Finally, regarding the structure, what bothers me (apart from the lead, which is definetly too short for a 37kB article)personally is the structure from the "Extent of Influence" section on: there the articles starts to make heavy use of bulleted lists and "keyword lists" instead of flowing text. Once again, I apologizefor responding so crudely to the nomination without explaining my rationale in detail. Phils 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is incredibly detailed. --Dzimmer6 18:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Unfortunately I have to agree with Phils. Brian has done great work, and the resulting article is scholarly and thorough. However, it has problems with readability. Definitely needs a longer lead. Could also use some rewriting of awkward sentences and a less choppy structure. The detail is overwhelming to a casual reader. Major discussion of primary sources or disagreements between historians is crucial in an academic work, but somewhat distracting in a general reference like Misplaced Pages. Sections like Late Historical References could possibly be spun off into separate articles and summarized for the main article. Isomorphic 19:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I just took a stab at rewriting the intro. Not perfect, but better. Isomorphic 03:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't have a problem with the structure; all the bases are covered in reasonable detail, and logical proceed from one topic to the next. If there seems at times to be a confused amount of data it needs to be remembered that the subject itself is full of gray areas and speculative points. I do agree that the article would be served well by the inclusion of a more images, one especially for a header. Also, I could quibble here and there about spelling or conclusions. But any such objections would be minor nit-picks; basically, it looks good to go for me. -- Obsidian 12:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many red links and also too messy, as the other users have said. Detailed doesn't mean that's a great article. --Neigel von Teighen 21:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The criteria call for judging this article. The existence, or not, of other articles isn't a criteria. Now if the redlinked article is needed to understand material in this article, that could be a problem, but then this article should be rewritten to add the needed context. The linked article does not necesarily need to be written. - Taxman 21:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Glorious content, but object for now. Needs a lot of stylistic cleanup, and improved narrative. Try reading some of the other featured history articles for inspiration and templates to follow. Some specific to get you started:
    • "Khazars outside of Khazaria" - sections should be paragraphs, not bullet-lists
    • "Debate" - all sections should have an introductory description. In this case, what kind of debate? debates by whom, when, about what?
    • "Extent of influence" - make these choppy bullet lists into sentences; with connecting phrases.
    • Improve the intro paragraph; make it two, with a better overview. And why is Dmitri Vasil'ev the only person named in the first section? If he's so important, why doesn't he have an article? or a link? or even a bullet in the references section?
    • More references.
    • Clarification of which information comes from what source. Very important in such a fast-developing and debated field.
    +sj + 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, there will never be "definitive" information about this subject (so the "red line" articles-to-be are understandable.)IZAK 05:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Bibliography is an ambiguous term that does not make it clear if those resources listed were actually used to add or verify material in the article. Can you either rename the section to 'References' if all those listed were used properly, or split those sources that were into that section and those that were not into a 'Further reading' section or similar. I would also have to echo the request for better flow, especially in the second half of the article. The material appears incredibly well done so I hope these fixes are made and anticipate supporting. - Taxman 18:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)