Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People/Archive 1

History and historiography
I haven't yet read the book; I'm waiting for the English translation, due out later this year. But, from what I have read, the main controversy appears to be not over Sand's history — his account and analysis of the Jewish past — but rather his historiography — his account of how this hiostory was written and rewritten to meet a political agends. I'm trying to find the review in which a leading Israeli historian states that no-one dispures his factual historical account, but more his inerpretation of the work of historians. Can anyone else recall this review?

In any case, I think this article does not yet distinguish clearly enough between these two aspects, and I will attempt later to improve this. RolandR (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No the critics point out the two: his facts are wrong and his interpretation of the work of historians is wrong also. Benjil (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is that both the Khazar Theory and refutation of the Khazar Theory or other theory declaring that today's Ashkenazi descend from converts are false when presented as absolutes. To state that the Jews of today are not descended from the biblical Jews is like an Anglo claiming that Mexicans dare not call themselves Hispanic. There may be Middle Eastern sub-communities among the gentile believers who have as undiluted descent from Biblical Jews as do the Ashkenazi but they would not be focused on it. Descendants of the bible's Jews intermarried with descendants of converts and remained selectively aware of their religion and culture. [i]new commenter[/i] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.109.36 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the Jews exiled?
The current version says:

"Sand's argument is that the people who were the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to what is accepted history, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt"

But it's not at all clear that this is "accepted history". For example, the article by Anita Shapira -- harshly critical of Sand's book (pdf linked by the article at the end) -- says the following about the exile:

"...Sand erects a phantom – exile – and “proves” that it never happened, something historians do not deny. On the other hand, he ignores the fact that even if Jews were not exiled from their land, and many of them did scatter all over the Roman Empire of their own free will, the very loss of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel, the Romans’ change of its name to Palestine out of a desire to erase all trace of Jews from it, and the establishment of an idolatrous Roman colony on the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was crushed, went down in Jewish collective memory as traumatic. This is true even if the Jewish community in the land of Israel, particularly in Galilee, did continue to flourish, at least until Christianity became predominant in the Roman Empire in the fourth century."

So even Sand's harshest critic is admitting that the exile "never happened". To be sure, she argues the loss of sovereignty, etc, is equally severe. But it hardly seems accurate to say that the accepted history is that the original Jews were exiled as the article currently does. 00:35, 12 October 2009 User:67.241.33.11


 * There was an exile, following the Bar Kochba Revolt (the 3rd main Jewish rebellion), under Hadrian (135 c.e.). When the rebellion was finally quashed, Jerusalem was ploughed up with a yoke of oxen and rededicated as the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina (and Judaea renamed Syria-Palaestina), and repeopled with a colony with foreigners. Many Jews were sold into slavery. No Jew was allowed to reside in Jerusalem or even approach its environs, except once a year to mourn. Under Antoninus Pius (138-161), Hadrian's laws were repealed, and the active persecution against the Jews came to an end. However, Jerusalem remained effectively off limits. Jewish life in the region had shifted from Judea proper to the Galilee.
 * It is well known that during the Roman period, the majority of Jews lived outside of Judaea, and were to be found in many parts of the Roman empire. There are many peoples whose population in the homeland is far outnumbered by the population in diaspora. People moved for a variety of reasons, but Sand is wrong to suppose that the Jews living outside Judaea were primarily descended from converts. Judaea was one of the most impoverished provincial backwaters of the Roman empire. It is not hard to understand why some Jews would have preferred to live in the prosperous, cultured commercial hub of Alexandria, where they were favored under the Ptolemies.
 * Sand also underestimated the contribution of the orginal Jewish exile (the Babylonian Captivity) to the growth of the Jewish diaspora.
 * Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial"
Why I can agree that the book causes some controversy (Haaretz note), describing is as (adjective) controversial in the very entry is not in agreement with Wikipedia's style policy (WP:NPOV).

I will rephrase it to include a second sentence that reads: "the book is considered to be controversial by some Israeli media" (and the Haaretz footnote). This phrasing is much more in agreement with the NPOV Wikistyle.

--Sugaar (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this been reverted? I see it again: the article says that the book is controversial, citing only a short article in Haaretz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.173 (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Khazars
I cannot believe that absolutely no one - at least until now- dared to call a spade a spade so to speak! (i.e. mention the taboo word Khazar in the article!) Why are you all so afraid of it? Sand's book revolves around this issue and yet you all somehow managed to avoid mentioning it. Where is the spirit of fair play and common sense so much invoked as something wikipedia must obey??? Absence by omission equals ...manipulation! Sorry, wikipedia is about NOT being biased!

So I had to come round and do it! Yes. Shlomo's book is pretty much about the Khazars and Wall Street Journal does not hesitate to mention it (see reference I inserted)

Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the citation, and brought a bit more of the Financial Times article so as not to unintentionally misrepresent Schama's opinions about Sand. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright then! Fair enough... Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Schama's review looks like an attack job, long on rhetoric, short on substance. A television presenter might say "His book is a trip (and I use the word advisedly) through a landscape of illusions which Sand aims to explode, leaving the scenery freer for a Middle East built, as he supposes, from the hard bricks of truth" but it's seriously rude from one historian to another. Oh, wait a moment, he's an art historian. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Schama, you may wish to read it. Schama specialized in various historical disciplines, including British history, Jewish history, French history, and art history. Sand, on the other hand, seems to have only studied film and French history. Seems pretty clear who has the better handle on Jewish history [[file:face-smile.svg|25px]]. -- Avi (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sand specialised in intellectual and cultural history; and part of his argument is that the entire discipline of "Jewish history", separate from other history, is designed to produce answers congenial to those who believe in the existence of a single and genetically linked "Jewish people". It pays to read the book too, Avi, even if you don't agree with it. RolandR 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that Sand has no experience from whence to write his book; I am saying that I believe Schama to have the better grasp of Jewish history. Regardless, this is becoming a discussion about Sand and Schama, not this article, and is so out of scope of this talk page. We can carry on the discussion via e-mail if you wish, Roland. -- Avi (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Schama may know something about Eastern Europe but his comments read like someone ideologically opposed to uncovering historical truth and determined to raise the temperature. Sands ripost here is mild and scholarly and semms damning indeed - "Schama is the only historian who claims that the Kingdom of Khazaria converted to Judaism in the 10th century and not in the 8th." I wonder which admins here really want articles undermined by giving WP:UNDUE prominence to the rabid, concealing the real nature of the debate? Yes, sorry, my job takes me all over the country. Registering only gets me treated like User:Epycwin, falsely accused of antisemitism and with 5 admins prepared to further accuse him of the same before his name was sort of cleared. Guess what, an editor who had started two good articles won't be back. While User:Okedem is free to wreak havoc. 92.27.122.197 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments about both Schama and other wikipedia editors are out of scope on this talk page. Please follow up with the other editors directly or follow dispute resolution procedures. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference clean up
Using a (relatively) new property of reflist (the |refs= parameter), I've moved the references out of the main text into the refence section itself. This way, the text is cleaner as all references in the text are named pointers to the reflist, where the templates are stored. The reader should notice absolutely no difference. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest: BBC interviews Shlomo Sand
See

Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation?
Why all but one evaluations cited are negative? Are there no more positive evaluations? Why are only Israeli historians cited? It seems that the section evaluation is very one sided and has not much to do with evaluation of the book. I would attempt to change it, but I am afraid that any changes I make will be reversed. Please attempt to make the evaluation section to be more of an evaluation than an arena for Sand's critics in Israel:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q="The+Invention+of+the+Jewish+People" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.173 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I think public figures like noam chomsky and figures from the islamic world have read the book and gave it praise as well as other less political scholary figures. Shiftadot (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

criticism
It's not hard to find serious criticism drawn on this controversial (yes, it certainly is) book by many noteable genetics and historians. Some of them blankly called it a fraud. However, nothing about that is mentioned in the opening sections which is praises only. Hence, I had no other option but to add the POV tag on the top of the article. The tag will be removed after the article will became unbiased (Random sources that criticized Sand:, --Gilisa (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Open section
I added a bit of the criticism on Sand's book and on Sand's himself into the opening section-in a manner that is in line with facts and with neutrality requirments. My edits were reverted by RonaldR with his argument is that the source I gave is not a reliable one/biased one. No problem. if you want-ask for new source, don't delete.--Gilisa (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it works, Gilisa. Please read WP:BLP: "Remove any contentious material which is unsourced; which is a conjectural interpretation of the source; or which relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability."
 * You can't add personal attacks against the book's author without (a) attributing opinions to their source ("According to John, Harry smells.") and (b) having reliable sources to begin with.
 * The lede already says the book is controversial. I'm not sure that it needs to go into the controversy in detail, but if it does, it should do so in an unbiased manner and must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's how it work-praises and applauses are extensively refered in the open section, to give reader the impresion that this is not a controversial book, and if it's -it's a serious one of its kind and not pure charlatanism. The section which should called "reception and critique" is named only "reception" and commentor on Sand's book whose POV is well known and relevant don't have it to be added in one or two exact words next to his name because he's wikilinked-that's all escaping the controversy around the book. Soory, but it doesnt seem the right subject to use WK:BLP-creationist scientists are criticised heavily in the open section of the articles on their name, while they live, because of the way they work. I add no ad hominom attack on Sand, let's acknowldge this. I wrote what was repetedly mentioned in many sources (and I will add few in the near future): a. he is not proffessor or expert of Jewish history and it's highly unacceptable for academic to write out of his expertise. b. he misstreated historical sources, again-examples are not rare. c. he blantently and publicly abrogated dozens of studies in human genetics contradicting heavily with his assertions (who seem to many Jews as anti semitism-no problem to source that as well)-blaming the scientist for having political agende behind their results and on the quality of their work.....All of this while he have no slightes knowledge, understanding or training in genetics (or simply, this is charlatanism). So, if you see my critics as hardly legible-it's not my problem.--Gilisa (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At the end of the first paragraph, the article says: The book is considered controversial by some. I personally think the statement should be stronger—it's my view that most people consider the book controversial—but you're not right when you say that the opening section only praises the book.
 * As I wrote, if you want to write about the reception of the book in that section (called the lede or lead section), you've got to use solid sources, you've got to attribute opinions, and you've got to do so in an unbiased fashion (meaning that you can't summarize all the bad things people say and put them in the lede and ignore the good things people say). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik, While I consider this book pseudo historical-I was unbiased in my writing, meaning that calling spade a spade is never biased. I wrote in short what is the critique on Sand's work and on Sand's counter arguments: a. he lanuched personal attacks on real scientists in a field that is far from any known expertise of him. b. he didn't handle well historical sources. As I see it, all the "good things" are already within the lead-and in any case, no reason for why these two principles of the critique are not there in short one or two sentences. What's more that you deleted what I added next to the name of Tom Segev-instead of just "historian", which leave him as unbiased commentor, I rewrite it as "the new historian"-i.e., from the very same small group that Sand is part of. You decided, on your own, that the wikilink is enough-and it isn't-so don't accuse me for being biased -I think that it's you who should to reconsider this sepcific issue again.--Gilisa (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My changes
I'll just go through my changes here, since I get the feeling that they are likely to be reverted and I'll end up justifying them on here anyway. I don't think they need too much explanation; most are just common sense.

1. I structured the reception section so that positive/negative/neutral reviews were grouped together. The unstructured section was a mess and difficult to navigate.

2. I added a number of positive reviews to balance the reception section, which was overwhelmingly weighted towards negative reviews.

3. I moved some interview materal from this section to the section describing Sand's argument since that is the appropriate location for Sand's explanations of his argument.

4. I corrected Hasting's review summary by adding quotes that correctly represent his views, which are not entirely negative as the previous summary suggested.

5. I removed a second paragraph describing the views of Israel Bartal. Focusing on a single reviewer for two paragraphs is undue weight and should only be done if there is a vvery good reason.

6. I added a section on the reaction of the Jewish community which has been mentioned in many articles about the book and is quite notable.

7. I removed a sentences that inappropriately reported that a reviewer had "deconstructed" the book which is a subjective opinion. I also fixed some weasel words. Factsontheground (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

8. You have no authority to make mass changes, in biased manner, with out discussing first.--Gilisa (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone has the authority to make mass changes, if they are supported by Wikipedia's policies. Please point out which of the changes is "biased" and violates neutrality]. [[User:Factsontheground|Factsontheground (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, have no intenetion to explain the obvious. Anyway, you can't do mass edits without having consensus on them first, certainly not when you deal with controversial issue. Your style of editing point on POV. I do not share your POV, I see your editings as controversial, violating and overall provocative. As mentioned, they go against WP:CONSENSUS. I will revert them all soon.--Gilisa (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User Factsontheground last edits
Please revert a.s.a.p the edits of the above mentioned user at least on the reseption section-he removed all critice done based on genetical evidence, which totaly in contradiction with Sand thesis and are the very solid evidence one can expect. If this is unbiased edit, I don't know what biased is. Not to mention that he orderd it in a very strange manner--Gilisa (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is simply untrue, Gilisa. The article still retains the following section (which is the only part that mentions "genetics"):


 * Hastings continues, saying "It is possible to accept his view that there is no common genetic link either between the world’s Jews or to the ancient tribes of Israel, while also trusting the evidence of one’s own senses that there are remarkable common Jewish characteristics — indeed, a Jewish genius — that cannot be explained merely by religion."


 * Please read the new version of the article before continuing to revert my changes. Factsontheground (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept your editing anyway. Leave things as they are and save as all edit wars. If we both unsatisfied maybe it's the best solution. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do not wish to participate in discussion on the talk page, you should stop editing this article. Factsontheground (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should stop telling me what I should or shouldn't do and shouldn't state base on nothing what I want or don't-where did I write that I've no intereset in discussion? Anyway, I just finished my quota of editings in this article-so for now only, I won't revert your edits which are controversial. It seem like edit war is within your intereset.--Gilisa (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead
No word in the lead, what so ever, regarding how cotroversial this book is. That's enough to title this article with POV tag. But I have to add that until the reception part, at the bottom of the article -the book assetions are proclaimed without no place for counter arguments (and it's acceptable to have this inter-debate when comes to controversial books-surely when it comes to book described by critiques as no less than pseudo histriography. Also, the editor comment have its own section here...It seems like the entire article need revision that will refer to the critique with expansion and also make it clear from the start that this book is immensely controversial--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederic Raphael review
Mick gold has added the review of novelist and screenwriter Frederic Raphael. In the "review" itself, Raphael himself says his "lack of expertise inhibits [him] from making any reliable judgment", but that "'common sense' supports much of his narrative and that its content." I removed the review because......uh....it's not a review. It doesn't add anything of substance to the article where we already have numerous reviews form those who qualify themselves and are qualified by others as experts. As the removal was reverted by User: Mick gold, I bring this to the talk page for a community consensus. Thanks for your time.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the expertise of Evan R. Goldstein or HIllel Halkin then?


 * And ignoring my comments won't make them go away. You need to give reasons for your mass removal of sourced information. Factsontheground (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Frederic Raphael is a highly respected British author. He acknowledges the limits of his expertise in his review, but as a popular Jewish writer who frequently appears on radio & TV discussing Jewish culture, his review is of interest. Mick gold (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of interest to who? He's a self-admitted non-expert in the area. Has admitted that he hasn't researched the subject. He admits that his opinion should not be taken seriously. Is there any reason this review here, if not to WP:COATRACK or WP:POV-slant?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not of interest as the effect only sums to that readers are confused between experts and those who are just famous. Also, we have alot of those here. --Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear that there is something circular about this argument. Raphael's views are of interest to me as I think he is clearly an articulate, well-informed commmentator on Jewish culture. Similarly, I fear that Gilisa dignifies as "experts" those whom he/she agrees with. Mick gold (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing circular going on here, but a misconception about how we work around here. We don't inlude content that we like, but content that conforms with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Including a "review" that isn't a review does not conform with the aforelinked wiki-policies.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick gold, I fear that you are a bit unobjective here. I won't read the entire discussion in this section from the beiginning now-but if I'm not mistaken -you admited that he himslef tastified he's not an expert. Sepcialist to Jewish culture is not necessarily an expert on Jewish history or genetics. Abrum Burg (now considerd as post-Zionist in Israel, and not because of his support in Sand book), who is also quoted here, was the chirman of the Jewish Agency -a position we can agree to be political and not one you get for being an expert in Jewish history or in population genetics. On the other hand, if you can find world scale geneticist who agree with Sand's conclusions, you are wellcome to cite him or her-certainly if he have data to support such assertions. Infact, it was Sand who demagoguerly disqualified world scale scientists because they torned a part his thesis (e.g., blaming Israel for being world leader in population genetics while Israel is also wrold leader in many other scientific areas-for instance, stem cell researce-and also, not in absolute terms mostly, but relative to population size-the same here). The problem. as I see it, is that you can't find any well known scientist who is willing to endanger his reputation to support pseudo scientific arguments as those of Sand-so my reservations seem to you biased, but they are not realy biased.. (maybe you'll be surprised, I have no difficulty to accept in principle Sand's argument according which Romans (possibly) didn't actively expel the Jewish people from Israel. However, I read many highly credited books which describe the real scanrio: 1 to 1.5 million Jews were killed during and as a result of the suppression of Bar-Kokheva revolt by the Romans(meaning 30 to nearly 50% of the Jewish population in Israel then) -then the life in Israel become immpossible-the Jews who were already live in excile during the revolt (3.5 million according to Yehoshafat Harkabi ) didn't come back -and those who live in Israel had no other choice but to gradually leave the country through a process that came to peak at the 4 or 5CE. You  will also have hard time to find real experts in Jewish history who agree with Sand, even if it's much simplier than to find biologist who can accept his assertions. Also, I have no problem with your will to include Frederic Raphael opinion-but in one decent condition: that you make it crystal clear that he himself testified  he's no expert on this subject. So, is this too much to ask?--Gilisa (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gilisa, because you have written to me at some length, I’d like to show you the courtesy of a reply. But I confess I do not know what to say in response to some of the points you make. For example, you raise the issue of genetics and write:
 * If you can find world scale geneticist who agree with Sand's conclusions, you are welcome to cite him or her-certainly if he have data to support such assertions. In fact, it was Sand who demagoguerly disqualified world scale scientists because they torned a part his thesis (e.g., blaming Israel for being world leader in population genetics while Israel is also wrold leader in many other scientific areas-for instance, stem cell researce-and also, not in absolute terms mostly, but relative to population size-the same here).
 * I never raised the issue of genetics and I have not added any material to this article which purports to either support or discredit Sand’s book on the basis of genetics. I happen to know people engaged in genetic research at an advanced level (including members of my own family) and when I discussed with them genetic issues arising from Sand’s book, their caveat was that the field of genetic markers is so complex that you can use the same genetic material to “prove” quite contradictory conclusions. But I would not wish to import that opinion into the current article. You also write:
 * you'll be surprised, I have no difficulty to accept in principle Sand's argument according which Romans (possibly) didn't actively expel the Jewish people from Israel. However, I read many highly credited books which describe the real scanrio:
 * You then describe a narrative which is at odds with Sand’s account of Jewish history. Obviously, there are many Jewish historians who disagree with Sand’s narrative of Jewish history. He states that his book is an attempt to revise radically the orthodoxy of Jewish history. I think that all that this Wikipedia article on his book should attempt is to summarise Sand’s argument, and to outline the critical points that have been made both for Sand’s history, and against Sand’s history.  On the question of Frederic Raphael, Raphael writes in the quote I added to the article: “My lack of expertise in its original Hebrew and in the detailed context of many of Sand’s quotations inhibits me from making any reliable judgment.”  Raphael acknowledges his limitations and then gives his opinion about the book as a writer who has written widely on Jewish culture. His essay is a serious piece of work. It is not a superficial or casually tossed-off opinion, it is 4,183 words long and amounts to a serious essay on Jewish identity by a leading Jewish writer.  You objected to the Raphael quote, writing:  “the effect only sums to that readers are confused between experts and those who are just famous.” But I think that Raphael is not a celebrity, he is a serious writer on Jewish themes. You also suggest: “one decent condition: that you make it crystal clear that he himself testified he's no expert on this subject. So, is this too much to ask?” Since Raphael’s statement contains his own acknowledgements of the limits of his scholarship, I do not see any point in adding to that. It is there for all to read in Raphael’s quotation. Similarly, you may argue that Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm are not specialists in Jewish history. But they are both historians in the English-speaking academic world of very high standing. They have both written large-scale historical narratives, so their response to Sand’s book is of interest within a historical debate.
 * One further point: I agree with Factsontheground that it is simplistic to characterise the review by Max Hastings as simply critical. Hastings is critical of Sands, but he also writes:
 * The author rightly deplores the eagerness of fanatics to insist upon the historical truth of events convenient to modern politics, in defiance of evidence or probability. No modern British historian’s reputation could survive, for instance, claiming the factual accuracy of all the charming medieval stories in Froissart’s Chronicles, which nonetheless bear a closer relationship to events than does the Old Testament.
 * It seems to me that in this paragraph, Hastings concedes considerable historical force to Sand’s argument. He argues that Froissart's Chronicles are closer to a true historical narrative of Britain than events in the Old Testament are to a true historical narrative of Israel. This seems, to me at any rate, to show substantial agreement with the argument in Sand’s book. I’m sorry that I’m currently busy at work and I won’t be able to contribute further to this debate for a few days. Thanks for your courtesy in writing to me.  Mick gold (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick Gold, I will answer in short (hopefully): First, I realy don't see how your quote of Sir Hatings "..concedes considerable historical force to Sand’s argument..". Yes, he give precedence to historical sources and prefer these on the Biblical account. How exactly you get from this to the conclusion that he give tail wind and backup to Sand's argument? It seem like you underestimating the methodological problems of Sand's work and also the critique. One need a lot of imagination to interpretthis Hastings as a supporter-maybe original research is the correct term here.


 * You have geneticists in your family? good for you but this is, again, original research. So, just to not leave this assertion without reply, I know several myself, including Wolf prizers who are not into the popuulation cenetics research-they are all, including two non Jewish evolutionist biologists (one of those is professor at Munich university and the other in NYU)-with whom I spoke personally, agreed that the research on Jewish geneome exceede the highest standarts and in any case your assertions imply that the work in population genetics is trash and biased, that's could be heared as very dishonest (and I refer this to your seemingly lack of knowledge in this field and not to bad faith) and in any case not nearly a valid argument (certainly not from the scientific point of view-your statement is realy far from being acceptable..it's very strange for me to hear about properly trained geneticists who blatently exclude the validity of such studies ). Just follow this link to see how these markers anticipated in 100% success  Jewish origin in a semi blind experimental design. This study, like many others(or even most, unlike Sand assert), was done by non Israeli scientists and I guess that most of those are not even Jewish.


 * Your assertion about the genetic research of Jewish people blacken the entire highly honorable, sophisticated and meticulous field of genetics. Your assertion imply like the scientists know how to get the results they want by choosing the right locations in the DNA to study...Not only such assertion is ridiculous and almost technically impossible but it also consist a good basis for new fringe theory. These markers are like bar codes -for instance, in the steady that reveled 40% of Ashkenazim descendent from only 4 women whose origins are in the middle east, scientists just found such "bar code" which is based on randomly collected mutations (like strong password) -this bar code was evidenet in non Jewish middle eastrens, but never in europeans. Also, Sand challnged genetics to found a "Jewish gene", I guess he was just provoking, but he also exposed his profound ignorance-there no such thing as German gene or Japanease gene or Arab genes, the differences between populations are in random mutations and in alleles prevalence.


 * P.s. You contradicted yourself: You admited that Raphael is not a specialist and then argued that in any case he wrote serious books and etc-how this relevant exactly if he himself was decent enough to tell that he is not an expert? Or that you just refered to my use in the word "famous", well-never mind, it's not that important.


 * You wrote "..Obviously, there are many Jewish historians who disagree with Sand’s narrative of Jewish history. He states that his book is an attempt to revise radically the orthodoxy of Jewish history..." I realy want you to make it clear for me-do you imply that their Jewishness somehow make their arguments less relevant? Becuase if you do, we can check the background of each of the commentors, not to say that such assertion is in very bad taste. I think that your clarification is needed here.


 * You continue with this line here "..Similarly, you may argue that Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm are not specialists in Jewish history. But they are both historians in the English-speaking academic world of very high standing. They have both written large-scale historical narratives, so their response to Sand’s book is of interest within a historical debate..". I realy feel uncomftorable with what may be understood from such assertion. In any case my friend, maybe you didn't know it-but "the New historians" are mainly Israeli ones and they are the greatest supports of Sand who is one of them...Also, Sand don't seem to have the support of most English speaking non Jewish historians.--Gilisa (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications section should be moved to Shlomo Sand article
This article is about the book The Invention of the Jewish People, not Shlomo Sand. A detailed discussion of Sand's qualifications is irrelevant to the book. We can report on the criticism of the book that uses Sand's qualification as a supporting argument, since that is relevant to the book, but we cannot assume that this criticism is valid or correct. Having a section devoted to Sand's qualification violates WP:NPOV because it implies that the criticism based upon his qualifications is valid and that there is an objective issue about his qualifications when in fact it is a matter of opinion. Factsontheground (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny of you to use the WP:NPOV. This section belong in two places. It's very important for people to understand who wrote receipt-a medical doctor or just carpenter.--Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving Sir Max Hastings critique to the top of the critics section and b...
A.It's the most straight forward critique as it stands on hard science. Do wa have agreement here?--Gilisa (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

B. The critique is much more important in such issue than the praises -after many sections with not even slightest sign of critique, it seem that critics must appear above the praises and not to be forgoten at the bottom of the article. Agreed?--Gilisa (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I's not a critical review, it's neutral. How could you possibly think that a review that ends with "His book serves notice on Zionist traditionalists: if an Israeli historian can display such plausible doubts about important aspects of the Israeli legend, any Arabs hostile to the state of Israel can exploit a fertile field indeed." is totally critical? Factsontheground (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good scientific critique is neutral.--Gilisa (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony Judt in the praise section
Judt admit that Sand's work is academically sloppy and that in any case its contribution to the academic research of Jewish history is negligible ("His contribution, critics assert, is at best redundant"). So, while he is listed in praise section, it's also important to mention his full opinion for the sake of neutrality. --Gilisa (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Judt does not describe the book as sloppy. Nor does he describe its contribution to academic research as "negligible";  he merely notes that some critics assert this. Judt's own view -- which  Sand himself accepts in the book  is that  "Prof Sand... is telling us   nothing we do not already know". Judt then continues "If Prof Sand’s  popularising work does nothing more than provoke  reflection and further  reading among such a constituency, it will have  been worthwhile. But  there is more to it than that". This is certainly praise for the book;  and there is not a word oc criticism in Judt's review. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronald, Judt does admited that Sand work is sloppy-I have no time to prove it black on white for you now so I'll leave it a side for the moment. However, I quote him word by word in his reference to the value of Sand's work: "His contribution, critics assert, is at best redundant". So with what exactly you are arguing here? And, oh, where did I write that Judt is a critic of Sand?--Gilisa (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because this is not Judt's own view, but his statement of the views of others.
 * Sand himself writes, in the preface to the English-language edition, "I should emphasize that i encountered scarcely any new findings – almost all such material had previously been uncovered by Zionist and Israeli historiographers. The difference is that some elements had not been given sufficient attention, others were immediately swept under the historiographers' rug, and still others were "forgotten" because they did not fit the ideological needs of the evolving national identity. What is so amazing is that so much of the information cited in this book has always been known inside the limited circles of professional research, but invariably got lost en route to the arena of public and educational memory. My task was to organize the historical information in a new way, to dust off the old documents and continually reexamine them. The conclusions to which they led me created a radically different narrative from the one I had been taught in my youth". It must not be forgotten that this is a historiographical, rather than a historical, book -- one which looks at the way in which the known facts have been understood, interpreted and disseminated, rather than one which uncovers new and previously unknown factual evidence. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Roland, I have no time to response at length, but there is nothing that I can recall that imply Juds was refering to others views. As far as I can remember he expressed his very own opinion. I really can't undrstand how you get to this conclusion.--Gilisa (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * " His contribution, critics assert, is at best redundant". That is quoting the opinion of others, not stating his own position. It is a matter of simple English comprehension. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't Roland, not in the context it appeared (and I get to it as soon as I've more than a moment) and not by itself. It's not a matter of English comprehension, it's a matter of highly developed imagination.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Roland, you are right here-what an embarrassing mistake of mine, I realy appologize. Somehow the "critics assert" skipped my eyes...However, I will quote here the full paragraph in the near future so you can see that he himself is in kind of agreement with these assertions.--Gilisa (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding one word in the lead
This is how the open sentence in the lead look now: "..is a book on the historiography of the origins of the Jewish people by ...". No reference about how controversial this book is, not in the opening sentence and not in the entire lead. That's in striking mismatch with other WP articles. I want to add one word only "controversial" so that the opening sentence will be: " ..is a controversial book on the historiography of the origins of the Jewish people by ...". Now, do you agree?--Gilisa (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The third sentence in the lead says "The book is considered controversial by some", with a reference. It's not necessary to add this to the first sentence as well. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, so like in here, and I'm sure you're familiar with this and with many other examples, it should appear in the opening sentence. And for the sake of neutrality "by some" should be removed as well, this biased reservation not appear in the (poor) source. it's controversial, period.--Gilisa (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"More accurat version" in the lead
After long time the opening section included short reference to that the book is considered controversial "by some" I fixed it today (accordin to the source) to "considered controversial"-which is not only the simple true, but also the most neutral wording and clean of any additional and personal interpretation. User RolandR changed it to "has been described controversial". I reverted this un neutral edit (which he claimed to be "more accurate") which seem to imply to negligible controversy around the book, and then RolanR reverted it again. If this manner of biased editing will continue the neutrality tag will return.--Gilisa (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous version, which stated that the book was "considered" controversial, used weasel terms to imply that this was a commonly-held, even unarguable, evaluation of the book. I replaced this with the objective statement that the book "has been described" as controversial. This is an objective statement, and can hardly be considered a POV statement, as Gilisa claims. RolandR (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Roland, You felt very comftorable with wasel words like "by some" (i.e., that only few see this book controversial). Maybe I've to remind you that this, and other Israel/Jewish people/The conflict in the Middle East related articles are not owend by you or by your political agenda. I don't think further explenation is needed, your edit manner is certainly touched with POV and anyway disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know what I "felt very comfortable" with? I am editing today, and I submit that my edit is less POV and more objective than the text you favour. Let's discuss this, and not a form of words that we both disagree with. RolandR (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Roland, the all problem is that your editing is far from being "less POV" than the one I favord. How do I know what you felt comftorable with? Let's put the cards on the table, you responsed rapidly to any change, even small one, in the article-You was the one thanks to him I noticed the biased wording "by some" -you had a lot of time to change it but you didn't. However, when I changed it according to the source (which just state that the book is controversial) you were quick to act...Facts are that this book is refered as controversial invariably (and sorrty, but I do not believe you are not aware for this. )...I'm sorry to tell but this jugglery of neutrality don't hold water. I expect you to play fair and to revert yourself to my version. I realy shouldn't explain it again, but for the sake of documentation I will do it again: Your version certainly imply that the book was described as controversial by someone or ones and thats all-of course, such edit can't be seen as neutral and goggling will not cvhange it.P.s. And for the documentation: When source refered to book as controversial, in all wikipedia aticles the standard is to name the spade a spade and not to make personall "more accurate" and "less POV" than the source itself, interpretations --Gilisa (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit says, quite truly, that it has been described as "controversial". You need to find reliable sources if you want to modify this. The issue is not what you believe that I am aware of, but what you add to the article. If you want to add that the book is considered controversial by many people, then either you find a reliable source that says this, or you find many reliable sources that say it is controversial. Don't expect me to do this for you, as I do not regard this as a controversial book. RolandR (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No no Roland, you see-there where you go wrong, first-you have to achieve consensus and onlt then to edit. Second, your edit is hardly technically true, at best. The issue is not what you consider as accuarte. Also, what sources should I bring? Even the one already used is enough -I didn't mention if the book considered controversial by many or only by some, don't you attribute me things I didn't say or edit. I only wrote, as the source is-that it's controversial. And, oh, the last thing I care about is your personal opinion about the book. I have no intention to violate the 3rr or to engage to edit war with you, so for now I leave the article as it's. Your last edit is certainly loaded with POV and my impression that with little good faith as well.--Gilisa (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" is a misleading term, the book has in fact been debunked completely by numerous historians, I have replaced the sentence calling it controversial with one that points this out. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the debate over the content of the lead, as well as other aspects of this article, I have nominated it for a POV-Check. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with the article is that it seems to be treating "praise" and academic criticism as two equally deserving opinions which is not the case, the criticism section should be split into two sections: a simple summary of negative reviews can remain under the title criticism, but academic arguments should be split out into an "assessment" section which clearly shows the reality that book's thesis has been debunked. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many problems here. Where should I start? Hmmm..This section where did you see section that is dedicated for the transletor notes (else if it's relevant for understanding the language or if the original language paly a key role in the book) in other WP book article? And why this come before the critics? Espcially when it comes to such controversial book (something that Roland blatantly denied). The critics iteslf is almost at the bottom of the article and the praises (another unusuall section) is placed above the critics, even if in this kind of books it almost never like that. The critics section was also ferociously choped by user with crystal clear POV. Only Sand's qualifications is below the critics on him. However, his qualifications are most relevant when considering his far reaching assertions (for instance, on the invalidity of studies in human genetics-he, for example, ask scientists to prove that Jews are a people by finding Jewish gene-only reveling his profound ignorance in this field)-This section is being opened like this: "..Some Jewish historians have said that Sand is dealing with subjects about which he has no understanding and that he bases his book on work that he is incapable of reading in the original languages.."-it sounds realy bad..Alsom there is not even one mentioning for the critique genetics have drawn on him or about his statements on the field of human genetics in which he have not even faint understanding--Gilisa (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are two examples for how articles on controversial books look like Darwin's Black Box and The Bell Curve.--Gilisa (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Grotesque Breach of Neutral Point Of View
The lead sentence:


 * The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars. [2][3][4][5][6]

is a grotesque breach of the Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV. It is is not even an accurate description of this book. Presumably this sentence refers to the history of the Khazars. This section occupies 39 pages of a book that is 313 pages long. Historians of the stature of Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm are not negligible, and they have written in support of Sand's book. Mick gold (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We should wait for the neutrality check. You are not the only one to have complains. The article is touched with biased favoring editing and with weasel words ("Jewish historians"). The option you suggest is simply edit warring.--Gilisa (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should await the neutrality check. I was expressing my concern. Mick gold (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but if you agree to wait so you shouldn't be concern. This version is the one protected because of many reasons, I pretty much agree with it, but if you recall I just wanted the lead to opened with "is a controversial book" which is dry fact that its denial by RolandR is one of the (many) reasons for why this article is nominated for neutrality check. Previous edits were biased and unsourced (i.e., "by some" and "described as" both wordings were incongruent with the source and commentarial or suggestive) and I can't see how they do any better than the current one which is heavily sourced. I hope that the neutrality check will consider the dynamics of edits here, weasel wording, aberrant article structure and many other issues that concern me as well as others.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well -you are using grotesque words. This article is nominated for neutrality check as it seems that it is owend by few users who did everything to hide the critics. The new version may be very straight forward, but as in examples I provided above, it's not irregular in this kind of articles that the critiqu appeared in the lead. On the contarary. And it mirror well the disputed nature of the book. Also, not Judt nor Hobsbawn are specialict in Jewish history or genetics, if I'm not mistaken. Also, Khazars were Turkish tribes, it's a very basic fact you seem to don't know. Also, my addition next to the name of Tom Segev that he is "new historian" and not merely "historian", i.e., that he's from the very same p[olitical-academic group, was reverted without discussion while it's mosr relevant for the reader. However, the argument, which seems biased, was that Segev is already wikilinked (so what...). Yes, there are problems of neutrality here, but from the opposite direction you suggested. --Gilisa (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Gilisa, I know that the Khazars are a Turkic tribe. I am pointing out that the section on the Khazars occupies 39 pages of a book that is 313 pages long. It is not an adequate summary of a book that has 274 pages that are not about the the Khazars. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, My dear friend, it's still the main argument of Sand's (along with others according which Sephardic Jews decendent from African berberian tribes and other already refuted concepts.--Gilisa (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved to here my reservations about the doubted neutrality of this article:

This section where did you see section that is dedicated for the transletor notes (else if it's relevant for understanding the language or if the original language paly a key role in the book) in other WP book article? And why this come before the critics? Espcially when it comes to such controversial book (something that Roland blatantly denied). The critics iteslf is almost at the bottom of the article and the praises (another unusuall section) is placed above the critics, even if in this kind of books it almost never like that. The critics section was also ferociously choped by user with crystal clear POV. Only Sand's qualifications is below the critics on him. However, his qualifications are most relevant when considering his far reaching assertions (for instance, on the invalidity of studies in human genetics-he, for example, asked scientists to prove that Jews are a people by finding Jewish gene-only reveling his profound ignorance in this field)-This section is being opened like this: "..Some Jewish historians have said that Sand is dealing with subjects about which he has no understanding and that he bases his book on work that he is incapable of reading in the original languages.."-it sounds realy bad..Alsom there is not even one mentioning for the critique genetics have drawn on him or about his statements on the field of human genetics in which he have not even faint understanding. --Gilisa (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish historians"
Gilisa has expressed concern a couple of times about the use of the term "Jewish historians" to describe critics of Sand, calling this a weasel term, and implying (unless I am mistaken) that the intention is to smear them and cast doubt on their neutrality. If this is Gilisa's concern, I think it arises from a misreading/misunderstanding of the usage here. Surely the qualifier "Jewish" here refers to their field of study, rather than their ethnic origin? One of the issues raised frequently, by both Sand and his critics, is that his expertise is not in "Jewish history". Critics have argued that this disqualifies him from writing on the subject, while Sand rejects the category "Jewish history" as a false division. This is a notable issue, which is discussed in the article, though this could be improved. It is in this context, and not as an attempted racist smear, that an earlier editor, not identified with either "side" in this dispute, introduced the term "Jewish historians". If there is a field of "Jewish history", then there must necessarily be "Jewish historians". RolandR (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I had enough with these word games. A spade is a spade, there is a difference between "Jewish historians" and "___ of Jewish histoy". And I don't realy know what qualified you RolandR to determine whether this editor did or didn't have side. The wording as it's (and it's here for a long time) is suggestive. Indeed, I do consider this whole article as highly biased and this wording still remain weasel wording inspite of your energetic advocacy.--Gilisa (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (saw this on NPOV-board) Well, I think this one can easily be solved. Yes, there is a field Medieval History, but Medieval Historians are the historians who lived in the Middle Ages. Somebody who deals with the field in the present is a Professor/Scholar of Medieval History, not a Medieval Professor/Scholar. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) See the discussions at Talk:List of Jewish historians and Category talk:Jewish  historians for more about the usage of this term. The distinction is not so self-evident as you seem to suggest. RolandR (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Choyoołʼįįhí, you are right in principle, but you used common sense here. Using this misleading approach you can also argue that the book is controversial-because common sense and knowledge obligate you to assume that a book which argue that people who are considerd people, both by the vast majority of historians and hard science (oh, I forgot -and by the very most of humanity), are not a people actually is disputed by its nature at least to the extent according which the argument according which divisions of Jewish history should be called off is disputed. Much more important than this, it obligate you to give preferability to wording which is in 1 to 1 accordance with sources. However, common sense is insufficient here, at least that is what implied by the nature of some of the posts here. But hopefuly WP still consider this kind of sense preferable.--Gilisa (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RolandR, I realy have no words left to argue with you and with your circular, at the least, arguments. Sorry, I just use common sense and good faith. P.s maybe we should link the "Jewish historians" to the discussions you just mentioned...Sigh--Gilisa (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, aweome! So I'll make some room in my calendar to write a book on Jewish history -- since, apparenty, that's all it takes to become a Jewish historian. No prayers or penis-cutting needed, eh? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Prayers?" "Penis-cutting?" Can you please try to stay on topic? Bus stop (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exactly on topic. The question is what makes a historian Jewish. I used to think it is being Jewish or conversion to Judaism. Now I learn that writing a book on the topic is sufficient. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit
The sentence in the lead "The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars" is inaccurate, and a serious breach of NPOV. I second the request by Mick Gold above that this sentence be removed, even before, and irrespective of, any conclusion is reached to the separate dispute which led to this page being protected. RolandR (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence is backed by references so removing it would be blanking. Please also see WP:JDLI Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources do not "refute" Sand's argument; they challenge it. Nor has the book been "debunked". Serious scholars disagree with its method, argument and conclusions. This should certainly be discussed in the article; but to insert these arguments, as fact, in the lead is both highly POV and undue weight. RolandR (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In your own words "Serious scholars disagree with its method, argument and conclusions". That is quite adequately described by the term "debunked"; bear in mind that such diaagreement by serious scholars is not whim but based on finding the methods, arguments and conclusions to be unsound. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because other serious scholars agree with the book's method, argument and conclusions. But I would not suggest adding in the lead "The book confirms the long-held theory that modern Jews are descended from Turkic converts, and has been thoroughly vindicated by scholars". This disagreement among scholars is relevant to the article, but it is not the place of the lead to assert that either position is correct. RolandR (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Roland R's point is well made. The function of the lead is to acknowledge controversy, but not to pass a POV verdict. Mick gold (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm realy surprised you agree with Roland. However, it change nothing in the fact that Sand's argument is in complete contradiction with genetic research and unaccepted by the very most of historians, and at the least by those whose expertise is in Jewish history (I think Sand himself acknowledged this by asserting that the divisions of Jewish history should be closed)-and that's actually in agreement with the essence of Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost wording. The only change I made was to removed the words "by some" which were suggestive that the book is not considered controversial in general, by most or by even notable part of those who can comment on it professionally. After I remove it and fixed it according to the source itself (which only named the book controversial) Roland decided to imposed the wroding "has been described", in total disrespect to WP:NPOV and WP:NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AWW he prefered his own original commentary on a reliable source that specifically refered to Sand book as "controversial" (one of many of course). His own words were that he "don't consider the book controversial"-I rest my case on his neutrality here. Now, for the article itself -as in other book's articles, the correct wording should be at the least " is a controversial book" and to appear in the open sentence. The all structure of the article should be changed as well, as written on this talk page previously. Also, you seem to evade discussions on the points we made here and only to complain about the current wording, while you show no slightest intent to propose sincere and unbiased solution.--Gilisa (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All I can see is that some non-notables and other "historians" like Segev who have themselves been debunked have praised the book in general terms without providing any scholarly support for the method, argument and conclusions while those who criticise the book have gone into detail on what is wrong with it so the two sides are not equally relevant opinions. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree to return to the highly biased version that Roland have tried to impose without even semblance of discussion through edit warring. The minimum that the sources indicates is that the book is controversial. the open sentence in the lead should therfore, at the least, go like this: "..is a controversial book". That's the version appear in many other similar articles and that's supported and clear, in this case, both in sources and by the provoking book title...However, Roland blatently choosed to use weasel words ("has been described"-which is original research implying that the book is only claimed to be controversial in sources and not realy controversial. Why? because Roland don't consider it as such..he specifically wrote so). "Some Jewish historians" should be changed to "Professors of Jewish history", while nobody claim that all of those have debunked Sand, "some" is suggestive to counted number. "Jewish historians" is clearly a weasel words that were supported by Roland in the discussion above but still unaccepted. The structure of the article give unproportional share for praises, unaccepted in this kind of articles, also-the praises are above the critics and Sand's qualitication section which are both at the bottom. Also, the transletor's note is also irrelevant and seem to serve glorification of the book only. I call for comprehensive neutriality check, and untill then, no change should be made.--Gilisa (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roland R and Mick Gold here. No reliable sources about this book claim that it has been "debunked". And the book goes far beyond the earlier book's claims regarding the Turkic convert, so equating the two is misleading.

I really think Gilisa and Kuratowski's Ghost are not being fair or even attempting to abide by the POV policy. As Mick Gold pointed out, the function of the lead should be to acknowledge that there is acontroversy, not to pass a verdict on an argument that has not finished yet. The book was only published a few months 2 years ago, to argue that it has been debunked or confirmed yet is ridiculous. Factsontheground (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, As I see it you are not in position to accuse others for not abiding the POV policy. This whole article is now nominated for POV check -which seems to be unaviodable because of the style of editing that is typical for few users here and you're certainly among them. As I see the things you should be in topic ban and you acknowledged yourself that you're very lucky for not being blocked already for your edits here. Also, the book is two years old and in any case, even few monthes are much more than enough to provide scientific and academic critiques -have you ever heared about WP:NOR? Because this WP rule put experts' opinions in preference on yours. So, how was the "long" wikibreak you took two days ago?--Gilisa (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What some editors don't undertand is that neutrality does mean that every opinion should be given equal status regardless of soundness. In an article on the Earth say one would not give equal weight to conflicting claims over whether the earth is round or flat. Similarly in this case, views of mainstream historians have greater weight than those of historical revisionists (the so called "new historians") whose writings has been discredited. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm would be described as mainstream historians who have substantial reputations in the English-speaking academic discipline of history. Judt was a runner-up for the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-fiction.  Mick gold (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, how many times should we repeat it? they are both non experts in Jewish history. And their praises have very samll, if any, volume of professional quality on this topic. Also, the first is anti Israeli and the second known for his Marxist radiacl world view-not exactly neutral commentors--Gilisa (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both leading academic historians, with a global reputation. Your dismissive view of them is of no account here; they are eminently reliable sources — no less than Anita Shapira and Simon Schama, and certainly more than Hillel Hankin. And the fact that you do not consider them to be "experts in Jewish history" is also irrelevant here, since one of Sand's purposes is to challenge this category, and to apply the methods used in studying other areas of history to studying the history of the Jews. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the nub of the problem that we keep crossing and re-crossing. Gilisa, are you suggesting that only “experts in Jewish history” can make a neutral comment on Sand’s book? Sand wrote his book as a critique of the orthodoxy of “experts in Jewish history”. On page x of his Preface, Sand writes:
 * ”An intellectual current known as post-Zionism is now found in various academic institutions and has produced unfamiliar pictures of the past. Sociologists, archaeologists, geographers, political scientists, philologists have been challenging the fundamental terms of the dominant nationalism.
 * ”But this stream of information and insight has not reached the plateau on which resides a certain discipline called “The History of the Israelite People” in Hebrew academies. These institutions have no departments of history as such but rather departments of general history – such as the one I belong to in the University of Tel Aviv – and separate departments of Jewish (Israelite) history. .It goes without saying that my harshest critics come from the latter. Aside from noting minor errors, they chiefly complained that I had no business discussing Jewish historiography because my main area of expertise is Western Europe… I expected my attackers to claim that I lacked a proper knowledge of Jewish history. But it seemed to me to spend my life at Tel Aviv University amid its vast collection of volumes and documents about Jewish history without taking time to read and tackle them would have been a betrayal of my profession. As a historian taking part in shaping the collective memory of the society I live in, I felt it was my duty to contribute directly to this task.”

Gilisa, are you suggesting that only someone who comes from within the community of “experts in Jewish history” can give a neutral verdict on Sand’s book? Surely it is these experts who are the subject of Sand’s critique. As for Hobsbawm, he has been awarded the Order of the Companions of Honour in the UK, the most prestigious award given by the state to an artist or an academic. This would make him, in the eyes of most British academics, a mainstream historian who has received high honours. Mick gold (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, your insistence here may emerge from your wrong concept of "specialist". What may seem to you as equally authoritized experts isn't so in a matter of fact. You can quote two MDs on the same subject (let's say internist and neurologist commenting on Alzheimer), and it may be that the former is more awarded in his field of exepertise. For many common persons, therfore, the comment of the former could sound as the more authoritized, but not for those who know the field. This kind of ungaped differences lie within the same discipline. There are sub disciplines and sub sub disciplens. Thus, these two are very very far from being good commentors. They also have very specific world view which cast obvious doubts over their neutral review of the book. As of RolandR statement "And the fact that you do not consider them to be "experts in Jewish history" is also irrelevant here, since one of Sand's purposes is to challenge this category, and to apply the methods used in studying other areas of history to studying the history of the Jews..." First, they are not experts in Jewish history, that's fact, not my only own opinion. Second, we talking about responses to Sand book and mr Sand is not the one to decide who is reliable commentor and who isn't. He also decided to challenge the whole filed of poulation genetics (which is, btw, a very controversial statement)-so according to the logic that RolandR  suggests these historians are also compotent to reply on this. What is next? Experts in history of Europe comment on quantum mechanics? Heck, in academy even critique from expert of North America history on subject in the history of the Mayan people may be easily considered as no less than charlatanism. There is  paradox lying within your argument RolandR-you assert that I'm dismissive about those and then argue that they shouldn't be experts in Jewish history to comment on Jewish history-so where I'm dismissive exactly? It's common sense that expert in A should comment on A and not on B. You, on the other hand dismissive about the concept of expertise, which takes from one years, if not decades of intensive work within the discpline, participating in conferences, gaining relevant degrees, publish many peer reviewed studies and so forth. Not Sand nor his supporters are, therfore, equall in their ability to comment on this subject. And certainly that they are not to be compare with his critiques who are acknowledged  experts. Not to mention that the field of Jewish history produced many world scale historians, some of those at higher standing than the supporters of Sand-so implying that because they experts for Jewish history they are biased, incompetent and so on, is ridicules--Gilisa (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yo are quite right of course. Sand had no right to write this book. It should be banned, and this article deleted, as a biased, incompetent act of charlatanism. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RolandR, I would appreciate your reference to the matter of the subject and to what I actually wrote-if you are realy discussing, and also if you avoid taking what I wrote out of context. I never said, nor do I think, that he had no right to write this book or that this article should be deleted. I do consider his book as pseudo historical, and Sand's attidue through population genetics as biased and pseudoscientific -and of course touched with charlatanism as he have absolutly no qualification to critizied this field of research. Thanks God that I truely not alone here, many experts say the same. What I said is simple: Supporters of Sand's book are WP:UNDUE as they are not experts in Jewish history and they are debunked by experts in Jewish history and in population genetics. Those are the ones you were dismissive about.--Gilisa (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And there we have it. Supporters of Sand's book are by definition "not experts in Jewish history" since they support pseudo-historical charlatanism. Therefore their view are inadmissible, and this article is only permitted to contain hostile criticism of Sand, since only these critics are qualified to write on the subject. QED. RolandR (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roland, I'm asking seriously-are you do it on purpose or that you realy can't see it? Do you take my words out of context on purpose? They are not experts in jewish history BECAUSE this is not their field of expertise nor do they seem to have the skills (e.g., training, language knoweldge and etc) to be considerd as such. Save the QED for logic, in context, arguments. Can't belive that I've to use bold and italic text, hope it will help you to understand.--Gilisa (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I am too ignorant to understand your well-reasoned and subtle arguments. I am too ill-informed to have a valid opinion on this, or indeed any other matter. My view are worthlesas, and I bow to your superior understanding. RolandR (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me whether you wanted me to see the koke only and by its meaning to scorn me or that you implied to my Jewishness in some essence, or both. I will indulgently assume good faith regarding the last two options-but of course the blatant incivility of this PA is not hard to be seen. And by now I do assume that my understanding is probably much better than yours. You are just not able/willing/both to make even one statment to the case in question--Gilisa (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like "bow to your superior understanding" don't help contribute to the discussion, and in fact make the discussion personal. Could we refrain from making them and comment on content rather than editors?  Regards -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 15:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality-check request reponses
Please see the comments made by uninvolved editors: here -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like an admin to come over the article and the discussion.--Gilisa (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL I agree with Gilisa ;) Factsontheground (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrators generally do not adjudicate content disputes. If you want more editors to comment, try an RfC or post a message at WT:JUDAISM. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are of course correct, Malik, I was just being silly to add a little levity to this discussion. My apologies for being juvenile. Factsontheground (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of a better-quality discussion?
The protection that I placed on the article due to the 3RR complaint is still set to run through 14 March. One can always hope that something useful could happen on the talk page during protection. So far I'm disappointed. On the 'Turkic' point, can't people collect references and try to see which ones are believable? I see there is a not very satisfying discussion about the question of who might be an expert on Jewish history. Surely this is a solvable problem? Real historians of Jewish matters would, in many cases, have their own Wikipedia articles. It is ideal if people have actually read the book, The Invention of the Jewish People, but a proper balance in this article might be achieved by those who are willing to read the reviews that are available online, plus any historical articles that may be relevant. There must be other Wikipedia articles that have information related to this topic; people could study some of them. What to put in the lead is a question you could ask of someone who has reviewed GA or FA articles to see what is best. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue was already addressed to neutrality check. I hope that we all earn something from it and if we don't, then we will go through the dispute resolution process. By now signs are not very positive, you can notice RolandR posts from today-where he not only distract people from the argument by making fun of me, but he also choosed to launch brutal ad hominum attacks. So, this way would lead to edit warring only. Personally I prefer that the protection will stay here untill there is agreement, out of good will of all the involved, or out of the dispute resolution process or involvement of arbitration committee that will comprehensively review the article and its talk page. The problem is not with finding reviews, and balance can't be achieved by sereaching for reviews only. Many of the reviewers are not expert on these subjects and have very meaningful POV (e.g., anti Zionists) and are loud spokers against Zionism. But much more than there POV, they are just not experts to Jewish history or to Jewish genetics (sorry for reapting it if already read it) and therfore WP:UNDUE is eligible here..Also, I suggest you come over the neutrality check and on its suggestions. As for the "Turcik" point, it was totaly dubnked time and again in studies whose focus was on Jewish genetics and it's also not the mainstream notion in divisions of Jewish history, as Sand himself assert --Gilisa (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why an anti-Zionist point of view would be more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to argue with you from obvious and reasonable reasons. Just for the record, those who debunked Sand and mentioned here are mostly experts without any prefered side.--Gilisa (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain the "obvious and reasonable reasons" why you are unwilling to explain your earlier comments? RolandR (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me.--Gilisa (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be harassment if I were following you around, or posting vexatious comments on your user talk page, But I am simply asking a polite question, to which I would like an answer, on the talk page of an article. I repeat the question: why is an anti-Zionist point of view more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Call it whatever you like, but you are certainly not polite--Gilisa (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you write that “there is a not very satisfying discussion about the question of who might be an expert on Jewish history. Surely this is a solvable problem?” One of the arguments of Sand’s book is that “the history of the Israelite people” has become a self-contained discipline within Israeli universities, divorced from the methods and outlook of contemporary historical research. On page x of his Preface, Sand writes:
 * ”An intellectual current known as post-Zionism is now found in various academic institutions and has produced unfamiliar pictures of the past. Sociologists, archaeologists, geographers, political scientists, philologists have been challenging the fundamental terms of the dominant nationalism.
 * ”But this stream of information and insight has not reached the plateau on which resides a certain discipline called “The History of the Israelite People” in Hebrew academies. These institutions have no departments of history as such but rather departments of general history – such as the one I belong to in the University of Tel Aviv – and separate departments of Jewish (Israelite) history. .It goes without saying that my harshest critics come from the latter. Aside from noting minor errors, they chiefly complained that I had no business discussing Jewish historiography because my main area of expertise is Western Europe… I expected my attackers to claim that I lacked a proper knowledge of Jewish history. But it seemed to me to spend my life at Tel Aviv University amid its vast collection of volumes and documents about Jewish history without taking time to read and tackle them would have been a betrayal of my profession. As a historian taking part in shaping the collective memory of the society I live in, I felt it was my duty to contribute directly to this task.”

I think that this is a large part of the problem in this discussion, and a reason why there has been little movement. Gilisa argues that Sand’s work has been “debunked” by experts in Jewish history. I would not agree. Many of the experts who are “debunking” Sand’s work are from within the community that Sand is writing a critique of. I have repeatedly mentioned that historians of the calibre of Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm have a given favourable reviews to Sand’s book. These are not negligible figures. Judt was a runner-up for the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-fiction. Hobsbawm is recipient of the Order of the Companions of Honour in the UK, the most prestigious award given by the state to an academic. This would make him one of the most distinguished historians in the UK. Gilisa would argue that Judt and Hobsbawm have written critiques of Israeli policy, and of Zionism, and therefore they are not neutral figures. Gilisa would also argue that they are not “experts in Jewish history”.

Judt has written that Sand’s book has “normalized Jewish history. In place of the implausible myth of a unique nation with a special destiny… Sand has convincingly reintegrated that history into the general story of humankind”.

Roland R has pointed out that there is very little historical research in Sand’s book. By Sand’s own admission, this book is a work of historiography. Sand has written a critique of Jewish history, and he advances his own arguments with the way that history has been constructed.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005, and I have been one of the principal authors of two Featured Articles. I think the only way to proceed is to present a neutral account of the argument of Sand’s book in the lead, and to acknowledge that the book has generated controversy. Then quote from those who have praised Sand's book, and from those who have "debunked" it. I strongly feel that the lead should not give a verdict. The current lead states: “The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars.” All my experience on Wikipedia tells me that this is a serious breach of WP:NPOV. Mick gold (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick gold — you tout your "experience on Wikipedia." You point out your "two Featured Articles." Yet you are using the talk page irrelevantly. The article's Talk page is not for you to explain why you are the person whose opinion on a divergent issue should be followed. Please try to avoid telling us in this discussion of your unrelated accomplishments. I don't think they are exactly relevant to the discussion at hand. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, we may try to be more constructive: let's try to shortened when postin and to give the gist. Also, lets stay in the exact context and reply to each other arguments as they realy are. Also, it's realy great that you contribute to WP two featured articles, but I don't think it can realy play as an argument here.


 * As for your essential arguments: 1. I wasn't the one who inserted the lead the word "debunkked". I only asked opening sentence that describe the book exactly like it's "a controversial book". It's also pretty much the standard in other articles.


 * Second, both historian you mentioned are not experts in Jewish history, so they do apply to WP:UNDE and the prizes they recived in other field of research do not seem to change it.


 * Third, while you choosed to emphasized my attribution to their political activity (which is indeed of relevance) -I'm not saying that they are not to be included in the article, but I do say that brief and proper disclosure regarding their declared world view is asked.


 * Fourth, Sand's arguments were totaly refuted in Genetic research during the last two decades, here there is no gray zone.


 * Fifth, I think that commenting on the neutral check page would be much better. It also consist advices that need your refrence.--Gilisa (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fifth,


 * So Gilisa, do you support the "debunked" statement in the lede or not? Factsontheground (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Factsontheground — "the "debunked" statement" seems to be well-sourced. But the wording is not carved in stone. Do you have alternate wording to suggest? Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not well-sourced. As far as I can see, this is Kuratowski's Ghost's own statement; it is not in any of the sources cited. So it should not go in the article at all. As for the sources, both these and others supporting Sand's argument should go in the body of the article itself. The lead is not the place for us to assert the primacy of one assessment over another; that would be to give undue weight to these criticisms. RolandR (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Bus Stop, it's not well sourced. If you check the references they are merely to individual reviewers who are each individually critical of Sand's thesis. There are just as many links available to academics who have positive reviews of Sand's thesis. To state that the theory is debunked would require a mainstream reliable source stating that it has been debunked. But there isn't one, as the theory is still controversial with many academics arguing on both sides of the debate.


 * Listing every single academic who is critical of the thesis like that and using that to claim that the theory has been debunked is original research and synthesis. It's completely unacceptable.


 * My preferred lede, and everything else, is this version. Factsontheground (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When I read this (favorable) left wing review in Haaretz, I wouldn't think we were talking about the same book at all! I think the issue can be fairly resolved by each side presenting academics that support their position on this. Is Sand a quality academic, is the book published by a respectable publishing house, and is it praised by (other) quality academics? Let's put up our respective best sources and compare. This business of Turkic descent -- let's do pros & cons. Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all Converts to me is a better, and more critical review.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly, we should do pros and cons and avoid making a judgement just like we do with every other controversial book. Interesting review, by the way. Factsontheground (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Factontheground, what source exactly state that the book is considerd controversial "by some"? In what source does it written that the book "has been described"? It's not only obvious from the title, but it refered invariably as controversial. Or that there is something that I don't seem to get here? Else, let's try to AWW. And where exactly there is "transletor notes" section in wikipedia (unless she was a notable historian by herself)? --Gilisa (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

about the title
Will somebody PLEASE at least put (book) after the title so people know we are talking about a book and not a fact? Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "(book)" is only used if there is a need to disambiguate a book article from something else with the same title. And I don't think anyone would assume we are talking about a "fact". Factsontheground (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) was just gonna write the same thing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think so? On what are you basing your opinion?  Stellarkid (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "In general, use the title of the work as the article's title" RolandR (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, further on in the same page:
 * "When using the title as written by the author, and  nothing else, possible implications of POV are the author's and not  Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external  author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV; Wikipedia's Neutral point of  view (NPOV) policy includes not to tamper with what  authors of notable works want to express with the title they give to  their work (see also NPOV tutorial). If there are opposing views  about the book  title, these are better  explained in the article text and not crammed in the Wikipedia page  name.


 * "Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages.  Examples:
 * Stupid White Men, not Stupid White Men (book)
 * Darwin's Dangerous Idea, not Darwin's  Dangerous Idea (book)
 * The Divine Comedy, not The Divine Comedy (poem)" RolandR (talk)  11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right. Thank you for finding that. You are correct and I apologize for my ignorance.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing
OK, this article is now unblocked. I won't make any changes to the lead until we have consensus. Can we agree that this sentence:
 * The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars.

does not belong in the lead. There are significant historians who do not think this is an accurate summary of the book. It is a breach of WP:NPOV. The lead should acknowledge that this book has generated controversy. Mick gold (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. That statement absolutely does *not* belong in the lead. It is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Factsontheground (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And what is the alternative? Do you agree it's a controversial book, at the least? Also, where exactly there is section devoted to the translator's notes? It doesn't belong here--Gilisa (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The alternative is not having that statement in the lede. Yes, I agree that it's definitely a controversial book. I don't have an opinion about the translator's notes section yet, but I will compare similar articles about translated books and see if its the norm. Factsontheground (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I fail to see how that's make an alternative.--Gilisa (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence should be removed from the lead. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, however I would also support retaining criticism of the particular theory surrounding the Khazars. One does not need one to do the other, there is no deadline and we can certainly remove the extant line while hashing out a replacement. Unomi (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree.It belongs because that is the main aspect focused on by mainstream critics of the book. Per wp:lead, its exactly the sentence that belongs in the lede.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't contend that it is an aspect focussed on by critics, but it is not the main focus of the book, which this article is about. The current wording is unsatisfactory and places undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the book. The current wording invites the interpretation that the book has the Khazars theory as its main or only premise. Unomi (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree as well-untill there is agreed consensus which fit with WP:lead and consist an alternative to the present sentence. And we don't have here a poll, do we?--Gilisa (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I too Disagree and will follow with RS that indicate that in fact it is a main focus of the book, as its very title suggests, and the one that has made the book both popular and controversial. Stellarkid (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neal Ungerleider writes in Jewcy : "Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People alleges that a historical "Jewish people" does not exist and that the bulk of Jewry today descends from converts, rather than from the inhabitants of pre-Roman Judea."  In fact Ungerleider puts it in the tradition of ..... "Arthur Koestler's Khazar hypothesis (which Sand resurrects) and Immanuel Velikovsky's attempt to reconcile Biblical events with the space race. " Ungerleider's credentials are on the article page.
 * Patricia Cohen in The New York Times Book Review  writes: ''"Professor Sand, a scholar of modern France, not Jewish history, candidly states his aim is to undercut the Jews’ claims to the land of Israel by demonstrating that they do not constitute “a people,” with a shared racial or biological past.
 * By now, experts who specialize in the subject have repeatedly rejected the theory, concluding that the shards of evidence are inconclusive or misleading, said Michael Terry, the chief librarian of the Jewish division of the New York Public Library.... Dr. Ostrer said the genetics also did not support the Khazar theory."
 * Jonathon Wittenberg in the Guardian writes: "But Sand's key thesis, that the bulk of modern eastern European Jewry owes its origins to the converted kingdom of the Khazars, has been  widely debated, and rejected, especially in the wake of Arthur  Koestler's famous book on the subject. " Credentials on the article page.
 * Evan R Goldstein writes in the Wall Street Journal "The Thirteenth Tribe was savaged by critics, and Mr. Sand's repackaging of its central argument has not fared much better. "A few Jews in Eastern Europe presumably came from the Khazar kingdom, but nobody can responsibly claim that most of them are the descendents of Khazars," says Israel Bartal, a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We simply don't know enough about the demographics of Eastern European Jews before the 13th century to make such an assertion, Mr. Bartal says, adding, "Sand has not proven anything." According to Peter B. Golden, a professor of history at Rutgers University, the Khazars are likely one of a number of strains that shaped the Jewish population in Eastern Europe. But, he stresses, DNA studies have confirmed that the Middle Eastern strain is predominant. 
 * Anita Shapira writes says ''"At the heart of Sand's book we find the claim that the Jews  of Eastern Europe, the "Yiddish people" by his definition, do not originate with  the Jews who came from the Middle East via Ashkenaz to Poland, but  with the Khazars, nomadic tribes that built an empire between the  Black and the Caspian seas, converted to Judaism in the eighth century,  and scattered to the four winds when their state was destroyed between  the tenth and thirteenth centuries."
 * There are plenty more where this came from, but I think the point is clearly made that we have RS that say that it is a "key thesis" and his "central argument" his "aim", and "at the heart of his book." Therefore it needs to be included in the lead, and the readers may need to know that the book is a best-seller, is provocative and interesting, but also that the thesis at the heart of the book has been discredited by scholars. If we are going to provide the alternative view below, the lead should reflect the article.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars. The sentence mischaracterises the book, which says that modern Jews are descended from many sources, including, but not only, refugee converts from the Khazar kingdom, and is not supported by the sources given, which generally say that the book is wrong to say that "things" have been hidden rather than that those "things" themselves are wrong. One set of opinions, when they are contradicted by others, should be presented as a point of view and not as facts. --  ZScarpia (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, thanks for providing material from RS. I would note that some of this material is more nuanced on Sand’s book than these quotes may imply. Patricia Cohen's review in the New York Times begins:
 * Despite the fragmented and incomplete historical record, experts pretty much agree that some popular beliefs about Jewish history simply don’t hold up: there was no sudden expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for instance. What’s more, modern Jews owe their ancestry as much to converts from the first millennium and early Middle Ages as to the Jews of antiquity. Other theories, like the notion that many of today’s Palestinians can legitimately claim to be descended from the ancient Jews, are familiar and serious subjects of study, even if no definitive answer yet exists. But while these ideas are commonplace among historians, they still manage to provoke controversy each time they surface in public, beyond the scholarly world.

Cohen’s review ends:
 * Professor Sand is operating within a long established tradition. As “The Illustrated History of the Jewish People,” edited by Nicholas Lange (Harcourt, 1997), notes, “Every generation of Jewish historians has faced the same task: to retell and adapt the story to meet the needs of its own situation.” The same could be said of all nations and religions. Perhaps that is why — on both sides of the argument — some myths stubbornly persist no matter how often they are debunked while other indubitable facts continually fail to gain traction.

I think it is fair to say that Cohen regards Sand’s book as “mixing respected scholarship with dubious theories” rather than being totally discredited. I think it is also fair to say that some serious historians have supported Sand’s book. I think that the lead should acknowledge that Sand’s book has generated controversy. I think it is also fair to say that the material on the Khazars has attracted comment in every major review, though the section on the Khazars occupies 39 pages of a book that is 313 pages long. (The book has 274 pages that are not about the Khazars.) I think it is a breach of WP:NPOV to either endorse Sand’s book, or to say that Sand’s book has been discredited. My draft for the lead would say:


 * The Invention of the Jewish People (מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי?, Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi?, literally When and How was the Jewish People Invented?) is a study of the historiography of the Jewish people by Shlomo Sand, Professor of History at  Tel Aviv University. The book has generated controversy over its account of the history of the Jewish people.  Many critics have disagreed with the way Sand links the Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe to the Turkic Khazar people.


 * The book was in the best-seller list in Israel for 19 weeks. It was reprinted three times when published in French (Comment le peuple juif fut inventé, Fayard, Paris, 2008). In France, it received the "Aujourd'hui Award", a journalists' award given to a non-fiction political or historical work. An English translation of the book was published by Verso Books in October 2009. More translations are in progress.

As for the Translator’s Notes, perhaps they should be incorporated into material that is broadly supportive of Sand’s book. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the section on the Khazars is only 39 pages of a book that is 313 pages long, it is clearly WP:UNDUE to include a statement in the lead about that particular hypothesis since it is only one of many that Sand discusses in the book. Factsontheground (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE does not apply here because this argument is the cornerstone of Sand's whole thesis. This argument was also debunked repeatedly (RS are given) in critiques about the book. And btw, thats that one chapter out of ten in this book (If I'm not mistaken) is dedicated for this subject can't clearly applied for WP:UNDUE. --Gilisa (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not; that is merely your interpretation. We can only state that it is Sand's "cornerstone" if a reliable source states this. RolandR (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's and it's already sourced to the essay written by Anita Shapira:
 * "..Sand’s main thesis is: there is no such thing as a Jewish people, there are only Jewish-religious communities which were formed mainly by mass conversions throughout Jewish history..".

--Gilisa (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ACtually that quote from Shapira vindicates that Sand isn't just talking about the Khazars, he is talking about multiple mass conversions throughout Jewish history. Hence, focusing on just the Khazars is undue. Factsontheground (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's still isn't. Critiques were focused on this argument as it apply to the vast majority of Jewish people (i.e., Ashkenazim). That's valid even they also refuted Sand's argument that Sephardic Jews are decendents of Berber tribes, Arabs and Spanish people. Also, as I wrote, one chapter out of ten (more or less, I don't have the book at arm's length) that is dedicated to the Khazars simply emphasize their part in his thesis.

Here is part of an interview given by Sand to the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz":

The third paragraph said:

"..בספר מנסה זנד להוכיח, כי היהודים החיים כיום בישראל ובמקומות אחרים בעולם כלל אינם צאצאיו של העם הקדום שחי בממלכת יהודה בתקופת הבית הראשון והשני. מקורם, לדבריו, בעמים מגוונים שהתגיירו במהלך "..ההיסטוריה בפינות שונות של אגן הים התיכון והאזורים הסמוכים לו

Translation: In his book, Sand try to show that the present days Jewish people are not at all the descendants of the ancient nation which lived in Judea during the times of the first and the second tample. Their origin, according to Sand, come from many different nations that adopted Judaism in different corneres of the mediteranean basin and its adjacent regions during the history.

"..לטענתו של זנד, התוספת הדמוגרפית המכרעת ביותר לאוכלוסיית היהודים בעולם, אירעה בעקבות גיורה של ממלכת כזריה..."

Translation: According to Sand, the most significant crucial  demographic supplement to world's Jewish population happend following the Judaizing of the Khazarian kingdom.

WP:UNDUE just don't realy seem relevant here. --Gilisa (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be if this article is about the criticism, but it remains about the book. Please do refer to the contents of the book, here is the table of contents. Note that the focus of the criticism does not reflect the weight of the books content. Unomi (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unomi, I'm sorry-the book main thesis is that Jews are not realy a people because they are made up of converts from many different places. And it especially apply and refer to the Khazars. The table of contents realy change nothing, there is nothing undue here.--Gilisa (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gilisa, the Khazars are an important part of the argument, there is nothing undue about the material. The table of contents can be framed several ways, depending on how you want to reflect the appearance of information. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, The first sentence of Sand's books reads in Sand's own words: "This book is a historical study, not a work of pure fiction. Nevertheless, it will open with a number of stories rooted in a collective memory that has been adulterated with a considerable degree of imagination." So, "debunked" may well be the writh word to describe the effect of the critiques.


 * Just want to add that just because only one chapter of a book is specifically devoted to one aspect, that does not mean that the author  does not bring in the thesis to add weight & support to the theses  of rest of the book. Total pages devoted to specificity is not a valid  argument. We must use RS to tell us what the main thesis is, anything else is WP:OR (ps --will the person above please sign? Stellarkid (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mick, thanks for taking my sources and quotes seriously. However I have to disagree with your interpretation of Cohen's remarks. When she says, for example, "Other theories, like the notion that many of today’s Palestinians can legitimately claim to be descended from the ancient Jews, are familiar and serious subjects of study, even if no definitive answer yet exists" I would remind you that "today's Palestinians" refers to Arabs and not Jews and there is indeed contemporary research questioning whether those Arabs are descendants from Jews.

I would interpret that last statement --" Perhaps that is why - on both sides of the argument -- some myths stubbornly persist no matter how often they are debunked while other indubitable facts continually fail to gain traction," as an acknowledgment that this book's essential thesis has essentially been debunked, even though the retelling of such debunked material falls within a "long established tradition."

Not to put too gross a point on it but to make it, nonetheless, think Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While often and thoroughly debunked, it continues to be resurrected and touted as fact. Even if the latest apologetic for the Protocols may include "indubitable facts" and real history, the thesis of the book is still debunked. That is why I believe Ms Cohen wrote "mixing respected scholarship with dubious theories”" Thus despite the fact that there might be some history in Sands' book that '"experts pretty much agree ... simply don’t hold up"'' most RS say that those are the "indubitable facts" intended to shore up a debunked and dubious theory.

Consequently I can't accept your rewrite of the lead as not strong enough. I do appreciate the effort however and know how hard it is sometimes to hammer this stuff out. Stellarkid (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)