This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A very important source on this issue comes from Donetsk National University. As there was a huge archeological dig of Khazar sites directed by Prof. Valeriy Flyorov, it is absolutely necessary to mention the results: [1] I suggest adding to conversion passage the following sentences:
Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify them as being anything close to fringe. There is no policy based argument to exclude this unique material of high quality from zhis article, and the desire or POV to deny any scholarly evidence which does not support the Khazarian hypothesis is not a policy based argument, nor is the "published book" precondition for presenting the results of archeological excavations and archeological findings of the team directed by the professor of the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences (by any WIkipedia rule). To suggest to exclude archeology and its findings from the articles about Khazars is again out of question. Fliorov findings are btw mentioned by Michael Toch, whom you used as source in AJ article. by [2]-- Tritomex ( talk) 20:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify it from being anything close to fringe.
As it is obvious, the dating of this findings to the 4th-7th centuries could predate the Khazars in general, and certainly predates the period of conversion. (of Khazar nobility and royalty)
WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
WP:V (a)surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; (b)claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.
You failed to show any sourced material supporting your assertion that the results of Flyorov archaeological excavations are fringie, extraordinary or isolated, a claim which I strongly challenge and which without proper source can only represent original research. As due to my chronic lack of time I have no intentions of repeating myself all the time and due to my unwillingness to engage myself in edit war, here is the proposal based on the text you have proposed and sourced with the archaeological journal I have provided.
I think if this extensive series of one sided concessions (from my side) are not enough, we should ask for third party involvement in this matter.-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"the Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable." Fliorov claimed that the number of Jews was small and that they lived mostly in the towns of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol
You've put the pov tag back. So you have made a judgement to the effect that 'the neutrality of this article is disputed'. So put down a list of what you personally consider to be the elements in the article which compromise its aspirations to neutrality, so that editors can grasp what on earth your objections, hitherto obscured by silence, are. Thank you. Nishidani ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit was reverted because it singled out one scholar, controversial at that (though the content of the edit was interesting), for extended paraphrase of his views. You can't do that in a summary narrative of the scholarly field, which is the only way we can get order into this intricate article. To boot, several things mentioned there are themselves contested (the Rhadaniyya-Khazar hypothesis, for example). If you have Gumilev material that has be cited by Khazar scholars as an important contribution to the reconstuction of Khazar history, on an issue we have so far missed, by all means inform the page. Nishidani ( talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ronreisman, which of the 9 citations you added for "This Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism" state that this Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism? I don't have time to look at all of them, but the several I selected at random give examples without stating how common it is. Zero talk 05:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
People shouldn't include too many garbage, inflammatory and exaggerating words in the articles like "one of the most", "major", "one of the...", "long served". Keep it objective and matter of fact instead of inserting biased words. Keep it encyclopedic. 67.190.164.74 ( talk) 13:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 16:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Khazars → Khazar Khaganate – The use of multiple words like Empire, Khaganate or Kingdom in this article is truly astonishing but most profoundly confusing, why are people doing this?
Request move Khazars → Khazar Khaganate + censor the word "kingdom" out of the article. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 16:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, please address the talk page when you have an edit that is challenged. In the present instance, after forcing me to revert you, you rewrote the text cited to Brooks pp.3-4 in a way which overwrote the distinction he, at least, made on those pages. He wrote:
Some of these Khazars belonged to a Slavic type, while others were short-skulled Europeans. Only a few Mongolian types were found.
Reading this I wrote: 'with minor traces of Mongolian' or something of that sort, and, while this is faithful to the source, you rephrased it to ignore what the source says. You just don't do that here. (2) If you can refer us to one comprehensive accessible RS study, readily available and verifiable, on the argument, by all means set it down here. The text must be accessible to all readers to be verifiable. Personally I think this trivial for a section on the 'People', esp. given that we are told 28 tribes went into the Khazar tribal confederation. One would indeed expect some groups of Mongol descent or origin. The Ashina themselves appear to be Türkic. Thirdly, to make generic statements you need a considerable sample base to derive statistically a reliable generalization about types. I don't see this as yet, except for the report on the key city of Sarkel, hence Brook. At the most we are bickering over a half sentence, and this does not warrant so much reverting or edit-warring. So please argue your point of view here before proceeding, to obtain feedback from other editors and not only myself. Nishidani ( talk) 14:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Proselytize is a pejorative term for promoting conversions in religion. Specifically it refers to Jewish persons making converts of gentiles. I delete it as an opinion and a violation of NPOV. The term proselyte connotes negativity of making converts. It is unnecessary. Saying "proselytize" means "Make converts, and this is a repugnant thing to do." The article does not need that opinion in it.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC))
There is actually no reasonable doubt that "proselytize" has a negative connotation. It is not necessary to express that opinion in this article, to wit, that making converts is a bad idea. "Make convert" is the neutral term, and no reasonable objection has been made to the use of that term. If making a convert is more abrupt, but proselytize connotes "seeking to persuade," all the more reason to change from proselytize to "make convert." For the powers seeking to make the converts were not just seeking to persuade; they made converts by force. Moveover, it is easy to document that adherents of Islam do speak of their efforts as making converts; but I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize. And of course it is unlikely that they would use such a term for its pejorative connotations. Do we have a consensus to use the neutral term? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 19:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC))
I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize.
'Islam is a proselytising religion. It is more or less a duty of a Muslim to proclaim his religion and see if other people would be attracted'. Third Way:The Modern World Through Christian Eyes, Vol.19. No.4 May 1996 p.18
Our fellow User:Smart Nomad objects to certain tribes being listed. What's you take on this. Khazar ( talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
My take, after your rude, inappropriate and unacceptable threat is that you are ignoring the source. Why threaten me, I mean really? Page 14 states they were part of the Tiele union. Smart Nomad ( talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary: In the article it states the Bulgars were in union with the Khazars; the source does not state that, instead it states that the Volga Bulgars were part of the Tiele union. The Volga Bulgars never united with the Khazars, but were vassals of them until Khazaria's destruction, after which Volga Bulgaria became an independent and powerful state. Smart Nomad ( talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
So there isn't any response from User:Al Khazar, both here and on his talk page,where I asked him why he isn't commenting on the fact that it doesn't say, in the source, that the Volga Bulgars were in union with the Khazars. He says I must 'duke it out' on the talk page - those are a poor (provocative) choice of words to use, showing that he (wrongfully) thinks I want to argue or something. He also says I have a "burden" by pointing out that it doesn't say that on the source. Additionally he says I didn't discuss - but I did - I mentioned it twice in my edit comments that it doesn't say that in the source. He just reverts without explaining (unlike me). Then he starts a new section on the talk page without explaining the issue (new comers wouldn't know what is happening, that is why I wrote a summary), asks users what their take is, but doesn't give his own opinion or take. Not very helpful at all. Smart Nomad ( talk) 02:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Still no response? I will remove it then.
Smart Nomad (
talk) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me User:Al Khazar, consensus, week? GO READ THE SOURCE, OK? I WILL defend myself, because I have a source to back me up. You have misinterpreted the source (if you have even read it), so it clear you are in the wrong, I have nothing to worry about. I will now report you for edit warring and will explain your actions - including your disruptive editing which borders on the insane. POV - are you serious, explain how is it POV? So, according to you if I follow the source then it is my POV, please be serious and please don't throw ridiculous accusations like that, which make no sense. Yet again you fail to discuss the source and the core matter of this situation, what is the matter with you? One can see from your actions - that you are not reading the source, and your use of provocative words such as 'POV' that you are just here to argue, I cannot take you seriously because of that. Smart Nomad ( talk) 12:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your have already warned me about edit warring? What are you trying to say? That I broke the rule? No I didn't, clearly, as I was well out of the 24 hour range. You are sure I'm going to have fun defending myself? You are using provocative language again in that statement. That is completely unnecessary, rude and inappropriate, which shows your nature, your assumptions and the type of person I am dealing with and trying to have a discussion with. I have confronted you about the source and asked you directly why you haven't commented on the fact that it doesn't say that on the source, but you continue to evade that question which just goes on to show, to me, that apparently you aren't interested in discussions and resolving the problem.
Why would I need consensus for removing something that is clearly not stated in the source? Wait a second, why are we even having a discussion (actually I am having a discussion, not you) on this? If it doesn't say that on the source, then why argue? Smart Nomad ( talk) 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to have this sentence added. It is inflammatory and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.86.194 ( talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please provide proof of the concensus. It appears there is a concensus against Hasbarism. Is this also being taken care of? Also please provide any personal information about yourself such as your religion or your citizenship to indicate whether there is any potential bias affecting your opinions. Thankyou.
The table at the beginning of the article contains the mistake.
Historians are not certain, and 969 =by that date, i,e, when ibn Hauqal mentions refugees from that city.:Dates vary in sources from 965-969
To that delusional fellow MVictorP: Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement to return Jews to their homeland. What does Zionism have to do with Khazars? It is an established fact that Ashkenazi Jews are descended pretty much equally from both Israelites and Europeans, but there is no Asian Turkic descent. And anyone who says "Hasbara" to discount facts about Jewish history are anti-Semitic trolls who should be ignored.
Too many garbage words and rambling sentences -> "weasel words." Weasel words are "probably, one of the..., major, long, maybe, perhaps, sometimes" in case people didn't know what weasel language is.
An example of a weasel phrase would be.
"He was one of the...major contributions that world has known, but he continued major translations...until perhaps due to the weak collapse of the...which by then one of the fewer entities...when knowingly...but maybe the meaning probably changed due to one of the major translations...so the rain stopped due to a very weak precipitation and of course he continued to study the one of the major precipitations but then one of the fewer...but meanwhile one of the major..."
This is called weasel sentence, which means not getting to the point, many assumptions, many guesses and not being succinct or matter of fact and confusing. Anything can be weaseled. Not weasel sentence is Yes, No or don't know and very short maybe in Wikipedia. On controversial articles, non weasel language can be similar to the string theory article. It is about getting to the point. 67.109.26.198 ( talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism". Seems like someones mere opinion. Wikipedia is for reputable sources. Don't want wikipedia to turn into a gossiping tabloid now do we. Please source this comment with reputable evidence, else remove. As stated at the top of this article "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" Confusionincode ( talk) 18:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 271 does not appear to lead to anything. What is this 'metspalu and behar' paper that is referenced with a question mark? 67.183.168.203 ( talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Alex
Just an observation on something: wasn't tritomex (the one currently lobbying for, one could say, the "immediate inclusion" of what is in question/being discussed here) the one who in the past put forward a series of attempts to prevent any inclusions or mentions of Elhaik's work when it happened to be just a preprint that had not yet gone through peer-review [29]. And then, if I recall correctly, this user then continued to put forth a series of very strange "arguments" even after Elhaik's paper got through peer-review [30] [31] still trying to prevent any inclusion or mention of it here or on any other related articles. I seem to recall some of these attempts including claims like Elhaik's work supposedly "wasn't research" because it "used data from past papers" (or some, again very strange, "position" like that). A claim there that another user noted would be pretty similar to claiming an astrophysicist supposedly couldn't do research unless they personally, physically "built the satellite themselves!" Vikingsfan8 ( talk) 09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It also could further be mentioned that with Elhaik's paper a full preprint paper (rather than just an abstract) was quickly available on arXiv here [32]. Waiting to include papers till they get through peer-review is a good step, and this was of course followed by the consensus of the editors with Elhaik's study. This waiting should especially be the case here with what you termed the "promised paper" of Behar et al. Because as of right now there only appears to be a short abstract floating around some places; which would not even give the minimum of a full rough draft for any one to review (putting aside the important peer-review criterion that should again be observed here overall). Vikingsfan8 ( talk) 09:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this section to inform the recent editor about the mtDNA study of Ashkenazim. There was an edit here by User:Sephardickohanim who blatantly assumed that a high amount of mtDNA K in the samples supported the hypothesis. This is despite the fact that the source/citation clearly explained it wasn't. To those POV-pushers or original researchers, please don't add your opinions or assumptions; especially if it is the opossite of what the source says. Thank you. --Al Khazar 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar ( talk • contribs)
Incredible. If nobody objects, I shall edit out that part, no matter how "well-documented" it is, because it is obviously biaised, trying to link those who agree with the Khazarian hypothesis with antisemites or influenced by them. Futhermore, it does not mention that before zionism, the Khazarian hypothesis was used by those who wanted to fight antisemitsm (the other side of the medal that was ignored). It is also a useless, off-topic part that gives too much focus on flimsy and disreputable sources. Let's focus on the subject at hand rather than the perceived intentions of their authors - Once again, Wikipedia is no vehicle for Hasbara. MVictorP ( talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
I don't particularly have any reason to be against this point of view, and such a thing is not the issue, but the whole section is far too vague. I read it in an attempt to understand why it was associated with antisemitism, but all it says it that several controversial figures have referred to the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory in their works. The whole section falls under WP:EXAMPLEFARM and frankly also under WP:SYNTHESIS, as it seems to combine a multitude of seemingly unrelated cases. It needs a lot more context from secondary sources that explain the claim in detail, or it will fail WP:NOTABILITY. Remember that there is a specific article about the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory, and that it might be best to limit its inclusion in this article. Until it's resolved I will add the examplefarm template to the section. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to explain. For about a year, I have been absent from Wikipedia and now I have come back for a little while to fulfill some requests people made out to me a while back. One of them was creating a Khazar map in English, since this current one is in German. I am good at making high quality maps via photoshop so if anyone is interested in having a new map of the Khazar Empire in English, then I would be happy to oblige. If not, then oh well. Either way, please let me know if any of you want an english version of the map or not. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 21:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For some reason the Crimean Karaites' theory that they descend from Khazars appeared in the Ashkenazi-Khazar theories section, which is of course misleading, because Ashkenazim and Crimean Karaites are very distinct communities. I made a split of the section to illustrate that. GreyShark ( dibra) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic scope of the Khazars, rather than the political and historical aspects of the kingdom. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.
The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 174Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This page has been thoroughly written and vetted in a collegial manner. Every issue re KJhazars can, unless pared to the bone in synthetic drafting, lend itself to expansion if you have a POV favouring one side, or believe you can rebut a position. This is not the place to (a) remove en masse material that is stable (b) try to 'rebut' an idea that, on the page, is already shown to be 'minor' or 'insignificant' with multiple sourcing. (c) Everything is required to be sourced, and it is pointless to jam in 'stuff' to score points, esp. when things like
This study was criticized for its use of Armenians and Azerbaijani Jews as proxies for Khazars and for using Palestinian Arabs as a proxy for the Ancient Israelites, both of which were seen as innacurate and/or politically motivated in nature.
Lack any source. It's true, but the theory was attacked from several angles, not only this. It's bloat, in an article that has, for reasons of synthesis, and conciseness, tried to cover all angles, minimally, without exceeding the strict limitations a comprehensive yet short overview requires. Nishidani ( talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is just a bibliographical notice, with no reference to the text. I've removed it.
Perhaps the Khazar theory of western Jews (as oppossed to sephedic jews of the mid east) Not so far fectched? Know that the genetic diase G6Pd prevelant amng middle easter "tribees' Greeks, Sehapdic jews etc? Yet, this genetic ailment rARE in Ashkanazi jews? (Severe hemolytic anemia especally in contact with the plant Vicia faba Fava beans) Anti semetism aside. If some or most Ashkanazi jews were from the Khazer tribe(s) wouldnt that make thenm NOT TO bLAME FOR THE "KILLING' OF JESUS? Since they didnt convert to Judism till thousand years or so after Christ was Crucuified/ Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson 64.134.238.48 ( talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
MORT!01:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.48 ( talk)
With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split and no response to May 2015 proposal, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic and cultural scope of the Khazars from antiquity to their disappearance, rather than the political and historical aspects of their kingdom, which existed during early middle ages. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.
The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 173Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome. GreyShark ( dibra) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have removed this, since it intrudes into a footnote without any link.
Genetic reasearch published by Balanovsky in 2011 confirmed high rates of the so-called Cohen gene Haplogroup J-M267 amongst several Caucasian peoples, namely the Avars, Dargins, Kubachi, Kaitak and Lezghins
I can't verify this in Oleg Balanovsky et al 'Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region,' Molecular Biology and Evolution Volume 28, Issue 10 Pp. 2905-2920 Nishidani ( talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So there seems to be some bias in this article, with a certain user reverting my edits twice now. It wasn't just a 'state' but an empire, which dates from 680/681, as written in books. How is it fair that the word empire is used for the Khazars and 'Rus, but not for the Bulgars? Do yourself a favour and go read some books, where 'First Bulgarian Empire' is mentioned. It is clear, and not arguable, that Asparukh laid the foundations for the First Bulgarian Empire/ that he created the First Bulgarian Empire. To revert my edits seems, in my opinion, to be biased and possibly shows some agenda here.
Here are some sources, amongst others: 1)Bulgarian Review, Volumes 26-27, pg. 14. There it says "1300th Anniversary of the Foundation of the First Bulgarian..." Empire, referring to 681 - when Asparuh first came and laid the foundations/ created the empire. 2)Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria by Raymond Detrez, pg. 52. It is written there that Asparuh is the founder of the First Bulgarian Empire, go read that... So, the word 'empire' should be used so that that section can be more in line with the rest of the text. Smart Nomad ( talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Asperukh, one of Qubrat’s sons, crossed the Danube River with his horde and laid the founfation of the Balkan Bulghar state.p.95. What source does the article use? What name does it use? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested that the Khazar was named after the old Turkish word for a cauldron, "Kazar"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.90.235 ( talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The final 2 sentences of the lead have been stable for years, though they become from time to time the objects of contentious excision or challenges, usually by IPs. The editing consensus has supported their retention consistently, and if an experienced editor finds one or the other bit contentious, the appropriate measure is to set down the reasons on the talk page and achieve some consensus for their emendment or removal. Nishidani ( talk) 10:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This IP editorializing is just that. One scientist made an argument for this (Elhaik), several others have brought up counter-evidence (which if you actually read some of it, does not wholly discount a possible Khazar input). In any case, these are hypotheses (I doubt either side has evidence to be conclusive, and I myself would be surprised were there such a monogenesis. We have no direct Khazar DNA evidence of the kind to warrant such a claim, also. So, Galassi, it was some IP asserting as a scientifically established fact that 'Ashkenazim do not in fact come from Khazars'. Does that mean there is no, even what one paper calls a possible 4-5%, Khazar genetic component in Ashkenazim? The phrasing is silly, as its certainties in wiki's neutral voice unacceptable. And no source was adduced. Nishidani ( talk) 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Khazars/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
We need far more inline citations in this otherwise quite mature article. - Jmabel 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A very important source on this issue comes from Donetsk National University. As there was a huge archeological dig of Khazar sites directed by Prof. Valeriy Flyorov, it is absolutely necessary to mention the results: [1] I suggest adding to conversion passage the following sentences:
Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify them as being anything close to fringe. There is no policy based argument to exclude this unique material of high quality from zhis article, and the desire or POV to deny any scholarly evidence which does not support the Khazarian hypothesis is not a policy based argument, nor is the "published book" precondition for presenting the results of archeological excavations and archeological findings of the team directed by the professor of the Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences (by any WIkipedia rule). To suggest to exclude archeology and its findings from the articles about Khazars is again out of question. Fliorov findings are btw mentioned by Michael Toch, whom you used as source in AJ article. by [2]-- Tritomex ( talk) 20:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Fliorov team conducted 10 years of excavations of Khazar sites. His findings are unique (as there was no other excavations of Khazar sites) unchallenged by any source, so it disqualify it from being anything close to fringe.
As it is obvious, the dating of this findings to the 4th-7th centuries could predate the Khazars in general, and certainly predates the period of conversion. (of Khazar nobility and royalty)
WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
WP:V (a)surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; (b)claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.
You failed to show any sourced material supporting your assertion that the results of Flyorov archaeological excavations are fringie, extraordinary or isolated, a claim which I strongly challenge and which without proper source can only represent original research. As due to my chronic lack of time I have no intentions of repeating myself all the time and due to my unwillingness to engage myself in edit war, here is the proposal based on the text you have proposed and sourced with the archaeological journal I have provided.
I think if this extensive series of one sided concessions (from my side) are not enough, we should ask for third party involvement in this matter.-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"the Khazarian kaganate was not ready to adopt any of the world monotheistic religions. The conditions for the conversion into Judaism were most unfavorable." Fliorov claimed that the number of Jews was small and that they lived mostly in the towns of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. The only archaeological find that can be connected with Judaism in Khazaria is a pot with the image of a menorah from Mariupol
You've put the pov tag back. So you have made a judgement to the effect that 'the neutrality of this article is disputed'. So put down a list of what you personally consider to be the elements in the article which compromise its aspirations to neutrality, so that editors can grasp what on earth your objections, hitherto obscured by silence, are. Thank you. Nishidani ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit was reverted because it singled out one scholar, controversial at that (though the content of the edit was interesting), for extended paraphrase of his views. You can't do that in a summary narrative of the scholarly field, which is the only way we can get order into this intricate article. To boot, several things mentioned there are themselves contested (the Rhadaniyya-Khazar hypothesis, for example). If you have Gumilev material that has be cited by Khazar scholars as an important contribution to the reconstuction of Khazar history, on an issue we have so far missed, by all means inform the page. Nishidani ( talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ronreisman, which of the 9 citations you added for "This Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism" state that this Khazarian hypothesis is often associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism? I don't have time to look at all of them, but the several I selected at random give examples without stating how common it is. Zero talk 05:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
People shouldn't include too many garbage, inflammatory and exaggerating words in the articles like "one of the most", "major", "one of the...", "long served". Keep it objective and matter of fact instead of inserting biased words. Keep it encyclopedic. 67.190.164.74 ( talk) 13:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 16:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Khazars → Khazar Khaganate – The use of multiple words like Empire, Khaganate or Kingdom in this article is truly astonishing but most profoundly confusing, why are people doing this?
Request move Khazars → Khazar Khaganate + censor the word "kingdom" out of the article. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 16:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, please address the talk page when you have an edit that is challenged. In the present instance, after forcing me to revert you, you rewrote the text cited to Brooks pp.3-4 in a way which overwrote the distinction he, at least, made on those pages. He wrote:
Some of these Khazars belonged to a Slavic type, while others were short-skulled Europeans. Only a few Mongolian types were found.
Reading this I wrote: 'with minor traces of Mongolian' or something of that sort, and, while this is faithful to the source, you rephrased it to ignore what the source says. You just don't do that here. (2) If you can refer us to one comprehensive accessible RS study, readily available and verifiable, on the argument, by all means set it down here. The text must be accessible to all readers to be verifiable. Personally I think this trivial for a section on the 'People', esp. given that we are told 28 tribes went into the Khazar tribal confederation. One would indeed expect some groups of Mongol descent or origin. The Ashina themselves appear to be Türkic. Thirdly, to make generic statements you need a considerable sample base to derive statistically a reliable generalization about types. I don't see this as yet, except for the report on the key city of Sarkel, hence Brook. At the most we are bickering over a half sentence, and this does not warrant so much reverting or edit-warring. So please argue your point of view here before proceeding, to obtain feedback from other editors and not only myself. Nishidani ( talk) 14:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Proselytize is a pejorative term for promoting conversions in religion. Specifically it refers to Jewish persons making converts of gentiles. I delete it as an opinion and a violation of NPOV. The term proselyte connotes negativity of making converts. It is unnecessary. Saying "proselytize" means "Make converts, and this is a repugnant thing to do." The article does not need that opinion in it.( EnochBethany ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC))
There is actually no reasonable doubt that "proselytize" has a negative connotation. It is not necessary to express that opinion in this article, to wit, that making converts is a bad idea. "Make convert" is the neutral term, and no reasonable objection has been made to the use of that term. If making a convert is more abrupt, but proselytize connotes "seeking to persuade," all the more reason to change from proselytize to "make convert." For the powers seeking to make the converts were not just seeking to persuade; they made converts by force. Moveover, it is easy to document that adherents of Islam do speak of their efforts as making converts; but I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize. And of course it is unlikely that they would use such a term for its pejorative connotations. Do we have a consensus to use the neutral term? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 19:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC))
I challenge to you document that any adherents of Islam speak of their efforts to proselytize.
'Islam is a proselytising religion. It is more or less a duty of a Muslim to proclaim his religion and see if other people would be attracted'. Third Way:The Modern World Through Christian Eyes, Vol.19. No.4 May 1996 p.18
Our fellow User:Smart Nomad objects to certain tribes being listed. What's you take on this. Khazar ( talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
My take, after your rude, inappropriate and unacceptable threat is that you are ignoring the source. Why threaten me, I mean really? Page 14 states they were part of the Tiele union. Smart Nomad ( talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary: In the article it states the Bulgars were in union with the Khazars; the source does not state that, instead it states that the Volga Bulgars were part of the Tiele union. The Volga Bulgars never united with the Khazars, but were vassals of them until Khazaria's destruction, after which Volga Bulgaria became an independent and powerful state. Smart Nomad ( talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
So there isn't any response from User:Al Khazar, both here and on his talk page,where I asked him why he isn't commenting on the fact that it doesn't say, in the source, that the Volga Bulgars were in union with the Khazars. He says I must 'duke it out' on the talk page - those are a poor (provocative) choice of words to use, showing that he (wrongfully) thinks I want to argue or something. He also says I have a "burden" by pointing out that it doesn't say that on the source. Additionally he says I didn't discuss - but I did - I mentioned it twice in my edit comments that it doesn't say that in the source. He just reverts without explaining (unlike me). Then he starts a new section on the talk page without explaining the issue (new comers wouldn't know what is happening, that is why I wrote a summary), asks users what their take is, but doesn't give his own opinion or take. Not very helpful at all. Smart Nomad ( talk) 02:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Still no response? I will remove it then.
Smart Nomad (
talk) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me User:Al Khazar, consensus, week? GO READ THE SOURCE, OK? I WILL defend myself, because I have a source to back me up. You have misinterpreted the source (if you have even read it), so it clear you are in the wrong, I have nothing to worry about. I will now report you for edit warring and will explain your actions - including your disruptive editing which borders on the insane. POV - are you serious, explain how is it POV? So, according to you if I follow the source then it is my POV, please be serious and please don't throw ridiculous accusations like that, which make no sense. Yet again you fail to discuss the source and the core matter of this situation, what is the matter with you? One can see from your actions - that you are not reading the source, and your use of provocative words such as 'POV' that you are just here to argue, I cannot take you seriously because of that. Smart Nomad ( talk) 12:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your have already warned me about edit warring? What are you trying to say? That I broke the rule? No I didn't, clearly, as I was well out of the 24 hour range. You are sure I'm going to have fun defending myself? You are using provocative language again in that statement. That is completely unnecessary, rude and inappropriate, which shows your nature, your assumptions and the type of person I am dealing with and trying to have a discussion with. I have confronted you about the source and asked you directly why you haven't commented on the fact that it doesn't say that on the source, but you continue to evade that question which just goes on to show, to me, that apparently you aren't interested in discussions and resolving the problem.
Why would I need consensus for removing something that is clearly not stated in the source? Wait a second, why are we even having a discussion (actually I am having a discussion, not you) on this? If it doesn't say that on the source, then why argue? Smart Nomad ( talk) 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to have this sentence added. It is inflammatory and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.86.194 ( talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please provide proof of the concensus. It appears there is a concensus against Hasbarism. Is this also being taken care of? Also please provide any personal information about yourself such as your religion or your citizenship to indicate whether there is any potential bias affecting your opinions. Thankyou.
The table at the beginning of the article contains the mistake.
Historians are not certain, and 969 =by that date, i,e, when ibn Hauqal mentions refugees from that city.:Dates vary in sources from 965-969
To that delusional fellow MVictorP: Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement to return Jews to their homeland. What does Zionism have to do with Khazars? It is an established fact that Ashkenazi Jews are descended pretty much equally from both Israelites and Europeans, but there is no Asian Turkic descent. And anyone who says "Hasbara" to discount facts about Jewish history are anti-Semitic trolls who should be ignored.
Too many garbage words and rambling sentences -> "weasel words." Weasel words are "probably, one of the..., major, long, maybe, perhaps, sometimes" in case people didn't know what weasel language is.
An example of a weasel phrase would be.
"He was one of the...major contributions that world has known, but he continued major translations...until perhaps due to the weak collapse of the...which by then one of the fewer entities...when knowingly...but maybe the meaning probably changed due to one of the major translations...so the rain stopped due to a very weak precipitation and of course he continued to study the one of the major precipitations but then one of the fewer...but meanwhile one of the major..."
This is called weasel sentence, which means not getting to the point, many assumptions, many guesses and not being succinct or matter of fact and confusing. Anything can be weaseled. Not weasel sentence is Yes, No or don't know and very short maybe in Wikipedia. On controversial articles, non weasel language can be similar to the string theory article. It is about getting to the point. 67.109.26.198 ( talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism". Seems like someones mere opinion. Wikipedia is for reputable sources. Don't want wikipedia to turn into a gossiping tabloid now do we. Please source this comment with reputable evidence, else remove. As stated at the top of this article "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" Confusionincode ( talk) 18:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 271 does not appear to lead to anything. What is this 'metspalu and behar' paper that is referenced with a question mark? 67.183.168.203 ( talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Alex
Just an observation on something: wasn't tritomex (the one currently lobbying for, one could say, the "immediate inclusion" of what is in question/being discussed here) the one who in the past put forward a series of attempts to prevent any inclusions or mentions of Elhaik's work when it happened to be just a preprint that had not yet gone through peer-review [29]. And then, if I recall correctly, this user then continued to put forth a series of very strange "arguments" even after Elhaik's paper got through peer-review [30] [31] still trying to prevent any inclusion or mention of it here or on any other related articles. I seem to recall some of these attempts including claims like Elhaik's work supposedly "wasn't research" because it "used data from past papers" (or some, again very strange, "position" like that). A claim there that another user noted would be pretty similar to claiming an astrophysicist supposedly couldn't do research unless they personally, physically "built the satellite themselves!" Vikingsfan8 ( talk) 09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It also could further be mentioned that with Elhaik's paper a full preprint paper (rather than just an abstract) was quickly available on arXiv here [32]. Waiting to include papers till they get through peer-review is a good step, and this was of course followed by the consensus of the editors with Elhaik's study. This waiting should especially be the case here with what you termed the "promised paper" of Behar et al. Because as of right now there only appears to be a short abstract floating around some places; which would not even give the minimum of a full rough draft for any one to review (putting aside the important peer-review criterion that should again be observed here overall). Vikingsfan8 ( talk) 09:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this section to inform the recent editor about the mtDNA study of Ashkenazim. There was an edit here by User:Sephardickohanim who blatantly assumed that a high amount of mtDNA K in the samples supported the hypothesis. This is despite the fact that the source/citation clearly explained it wasn't. To those POV-pushers or original researchers, please don't add your opinions or assumptions; especially if it is the opossite of what the source says. Thank you. --Al Khazar 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Khazar ( talk • contribs)
Incredible. If nobody objects, I shall edit out that part, no matter how "well-documented" it is, because it is obviously biaised, trying to link those who agree with the Khazarian hypothesis with antisemites or influenced by them. Futhermore, it does not mention that before zionism, the Khazarian hypothesis was used by those who wanted to fight antisemitsm (the other side of the medal that was ignored). It is also a useless, off-topic part that gives too much focus on flimsy and disreputable sources. Let's focus on the subject at hand rather than the perceived intentions of their authors - Once again, Wikipedia is no vehicle for Hasbara. MVictorP ( talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This Khazarian hypothesis is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
I don't particularly have any reason to be against this point of view, and such a thing is not the issue, but the whole section is far too vague. I read it in an attempt to understand why it was associated with antisemitism, but all it says it that several controversial figures have referred to the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory in their works. The whole section falls under WP:EXAMPLEFARM and frankly also under WP:SYNTHESIS, as it seems to combine a multitude of seemingly unrelated cases. It needs a lot more context from secondary sources that explain the claim in detail, or it will fail WP:NOTABILITY. Remember that there is a specific article about the Ashkenazi-Khazar theory, and that it might be best to limit its inclusion in this article. Until it's resolved I will add the examplefarm template to the section. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to explain. For about a year, I have been absent from Wikipedia and now I have come back for a little while to fulfill some requests people made out to me a while back. One of them was creating a Khazar map in English, since this current one is in German. I am good at making high quality maps via photoshop so if anyone is interested in having a new map of the Khazar Empire in English, then I would be happy to oblige. If not, then oh well. Either way, please let me know if any of you want an english version of the map or not. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 21:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For some reason the Crimean Karaites' theory that they descend from Khazars appeared in the Ashkenazi-Khazar theories section, which is of course misleading, because Ashkenazim and Crimean Karaites are very distinct communities. I made a split of the section to illustrate that. GreyShark ( dibra) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic scope of the Khazars, rather than the political and historical aspects of the kingdom. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.
The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 174Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This page has been thoroughly written and vetted in a collegial manner. Every issue re KJhazars can, unless pared to the bone in synthetic drafting, lend itself to expansion if you have a POV favouring one side, or believe you can rebut a position. This is not the place to (a) remove en masse material that is stable (b) try to 'rebut' an idea that, on the page, is already shown to be 'minor' or 'insignificant' with multiple sourcing. (c) Everything is required to be sourced, and it is pointless to jam in 'stuff' to score points, esp. when things like
This study was criticized for its use of Armenians and Azerbaijani Jews as proxies for Khazars and for using Palestinian Arabs as a proxy for the Ancient Israelites, both of which were seen as innacurate and/or politically motivated in nature.
Lack any source. It's true, but the theory was attacked from several angles, not only this. It's bloat, in an article that has, for reasons of synthesis, and conciseness, tried to cover all angles, minimally, without exceeding the strict limitations a comprehensive yet short overview requires. Nishidani ( talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is just a bibliographical notice, with no reference to the text. I've removed it.
Perhaps the Khazar theory of western Jews (as oppossed to sephedic jews of the mid east) Not so far fectched? Know that the genetic diase G6Pd prevelant amng middle easter "tribees' Greeks, Sehapdic jews etc? Yet, this genetic ailment rARE in Ashkanazi jews? (Severe hemolytic anemia especally in contact with the plant Vicia faba Fava beans) Anti semetism aside. If some or most Ashkanazi jews were from the Khazer tribe(s) wouldnt that make thenm NOT TO bLAME FOR THE "KILLING' OF JESUS? Since they didnt convert to Judism till thousand years or so after Christ was Crucuified/ Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson 64.134.238.48 ( talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
MORT!01:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.48 ( talk)
With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split and no response to May 2015 proposal, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic and cultural scope of the Khazars from antiquity to their disappearance, rather than the political and historical aspects of their kingdom, which existed during early middle ages. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.
The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 173Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome. GreyShark ( dibra) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have removed this, since it intrudes into a footnote without any link.
Genetic reasearch published by Balanovsky in 2011 confirmed high rates of the so-called Cohen gene Haplogroup J-M267 amongst several Caucasian peoples, namely the Avars, Dargins, Kubachi, Kaitak and Lezghins
I can't verify this in Oleg Balanovsky et al 'Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region,' Molecular Biology and Evolution Volume 28, Issue 10 Pp. 2905-2920 Nishidani ( talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So there seems to be some bias in this article, with a certain user reverting my edits twice now. It wasn't just a 'state' but an empire, which dates from 680/681, as written in books. How is it fair that the word empire is used for the Khazars and 'Rus, but not for the Bulgars? Do yourself a favour and go read some books, where 'First Bulgarian Empire' is mentioned. It is clear, and not arguable, that Asparukh laid the foundations for the First Bulgarian Empire/ that he created the First Bulgarian Empire. To revert my edits seems, in my opinion, to be biased and possibly shows some agenda here.
Here are some sources, amongst others: 1)Bulgarian Review, Volumes 26-27, pg. 14. There it says "1300th Anniversary of the Foundation of the First Bulgarian..." Empire, referring to 681 - when Asparuh first came and laid the foundations/ created the empire. 2)Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria by Raymond Detrez, pg. 52. It is written there that Asparuh is the founder of the First Bulgarian Empire, go read that... So, the word 'empire' should be used so that that section can be more in line with the rest of the text. Smart Nomad ( talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Asperukh, one of Qubrat’s sons, crossed the Danube River with his horde and laid the founfation of the Balkan Bulghar state.p.95. What source does the article use? What name does it use? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested that the Khazar was named after the old Turkish word for a cauldron, "Kazar"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.90.235 ( talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The final 2 sentences of the lead have been stable for years, though they become from time to time the objects of contentious excision or challenges, usually by IPs. The editing consensus has supported their retention consistently, and if an experienced editor finds one or the other bit contentious, the appropriate measure is to set down the reasons on the talk page and achieve some consensus for their emendment or removal. Nishidani ( talk) 10:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This IP editorializing is just that. One scientist made an argument for this (Elhaik), several others have brought up counter-evidence (which if you actually read some of it, does not wholly discount a possible Khazar input). In any case, these are hypotheses (I doubt either side has evidence to be conclusive, and I myself would be surprised were there such a monogenesis. We have no direct Khazar DNA evidence of the kind to warrant such a claim, also. So, Galassi, it was some IP asserting as a scientifically established fact that 'Ashkenazim do not in fact come from Khazars'. Does that mean there is no, even what one paper calls a possible 4-5%, Khazar genetic component in Ashkenazim? The phrasing is silly, as its certainties in wiki's neutral voice unacceptable. And no source was adduced. Nishidani ( talk) 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Khazars/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
We need far more inline citations in this otherwise quite mature article. - Jmabel 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)