Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People/Archive 2

Edit warring and WP:CON
The last edits (by users Anoniumus&RolandR) been done without consensus on phraseology. It consis violation of WP:CONSENSUS and lead again to edit warrings. Please avoid it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How are we going to reach consensus? I would be in favour of the sentence: "The book has been described as "controversial".
 * I would be against the sentence "The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars." This is a breach of WP:NPOV.  Mick gold (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By discussing on it in the "editing" section you opened. I wouldn't be so decisive that it's a breach-but we can agree on a different phraseology.Personally I think that the one you suggessted for the lead has good potential-but further discussion is needed. Other alternatives, from much earlier versions, such as "controverisal by some" and "has been described controversial" certainly breached WP:NPOV.--Gilisa (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy was started by Kuratowski ghost's additions of claiming that the book was debunked. Therefore the consensus version would be the one before those edit's. Therefore the article should stay with that version until a consensus is reached on the talk page.annoynmous 09:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy started much before on March 7, you were not a party as much as I can remember. And your last edits here are disprutive and disrespectful of WP:CON.--Gilisa (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to the controversy in general with the article, I was referring specifically to the lead of the article. None of the edit's of the article, including yours, contained this claim that the book had been thoroughly debunked. It was only after Kuratowskis ghost added this language that an edit war broke out that got the article protected.


 * I am not an expert on the subject and I don't know whether Sands book has been debunked or not, but I know POV language when I see it. It seems to me like a majority of editors agree that this language is not appropriate. I haven't removed any sources with my edits, all the reviews are still in the article. I simply removed them from the lead the POV language that accompianed them.annoynmous 10:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see POV language when I see it as well, although I can't speak it myself. Just to debunk your argument, the controversy around the lead started much before Kuratowskis ghost first edited it and there is no majority as you suggested-and you are not the one to decide whether there is consensus or not.--Gilisa (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor are you. RolandR (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, you are the one, I forgot.--Gilisa (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of consensus, how long does everybody think would be a fair time to leave open the poll on whether to delete the "debunked" sentence before taking or forgoing action? Currently, it looks as though it's standing at 5 for deletion, 3 for keeping. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Poll, what poll exactly? And who decide that now Wikipedia accept poll as mean to solve dispute on the talk page?--Gilisa (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See the section above. Perhaps poll was the wrong word, but there is a discussion going on there which is aimed at establishing what the consensus is over the 'debunked' sentence in the Lead.   -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are few relevant sections.--Gilisa (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Few sections relevant to establishing the consensus over the sentence reading: "The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars"?  --  ZScarpia (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is that there is no other acceptable phraseology that was already used in the article. Today reverts are highly in contradiction to WP:Consensus and to are not helpful in solving this dsipute, infact they over run consensus. "Has been described" is nothing better, to say the least-it's sugestive and it's poor phraseology that is unaccepted by many editors.--Gilisa (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

{Outdent from Gilisa comment of 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)) The consensus appears to be that the sentence I have quoted "shouldn't be in the article". I'm not quite sure what you mean by "today reverts are highly in contradiction to WP:Consensus" and that, regarding reverts, "infact they over run consensus." Are you saying that, despite consensus, the sentence should stay in the article because of some rule regarding reversions?  -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

{indent}No, I simply say that you had no consensus to remove the sentence from the lead and certainly not to return to RolandR old POV version ("has been described). Do you want me to name the editors who were against such changed during the last two or three days? There is no consensus here and therfore the present version will not reamin stable.--Gilisa (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably, as I haven't edited the article at all, you're using the word "you" in a broad sense. If the editors you mention want their opinions to count, they should note that in the above section. At the moment, the survey being carried out there does indicate that the consensus is that the sentence should be removed. Anybody restoring it will therefore be potentially editing against consensus.  - ZScarpia (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did use "you" in broad sense. Anyway, what survey? No one can decide that he/she do a survey and by that ignoring the consensus prior to the survey. What's more, that wiki just don't work like that. To remind you, wiki is not a democracy and yet asks us to seek consensus. It is clear that the present phraseology is not in consensus as well. So, the whole argument of replacing the previous sentence with the present one "for the sake of consensus" fail. --Gilisa (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would ask people to please avoid editwarring and do the hard work on this page. Stellarkid (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On Consensus
The (imo excellent) advice from User:Itsmejudith: You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find.

The discussion here has been voluminous yet apparently deadlocked but an overview seems to be (and please add editors who I may have missed):

Lede is not NPOV

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) I agree that the sentence should be removed from the lead. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) *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)
 * 6) The controversy was started by Kuratowski ghost's additions of claiming that the book was debunked. Therefore the consensus version would be the one before those edit's. Therefore the article should stay with that version until a consensus is reached on the talk page. annoynmous 09:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *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)
 * 2) The controversy was started by Kuratowski ghost's additions of claiming that the book was debunked. Therefore the consensus version would be the one before those edit's. Therefore the article should stay with that version until a consensus is reached on the talk page. annoynmous 09:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The controversy was started by Kuratowski ghost's additions of claiming that the book was debunked. Therefore the consensus version would be the one before those edit's. Therefore the article should stay with that version until a consensus is reached on the talk page. annoynmous 09:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede Conforms to NPOV

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) *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)
 * 3) *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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 1) *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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 1) 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)

Proposal by Mick Gold
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.


 * Support : Further detail and attribution of the criticism can be dealt with in the section on its reception. Unomi (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The proposed form gives a false impression of what the book is about and isn't supported by the sources. I suggest that the Lead is restricted to saying that the book has "attracted fierce controversy" (Hastings) and that a treatment of the criticisms is left to the body of the article. The book is about how a national legend has evolved and been maintained, it isn't a history of the Jewish people. From what I've read, in relation to the Khazar Empire, it talks about the possibility that millions of Ashkenazi Jews may be descendants, it doesn't claim that they are. The contention that "many critics have disagreed" isn't supported by either what the sources, Schama and Hastings, say or by their number. Schama says: Its real challenge to the reader is separating the presentation of truisms as though they were revolutionary illuminations and the relentless beating on doors that have long been open, from passages of intellectual sharpness and learning. His main criticism isn't about what the book says about Jewish History, but that Sand should claim that what he says has been denied.   --  ZScarpia (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer this format as well, which seems more in-line with comparable issues. Unomi (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I've changed my mind about my draft, because of arguments advanced by other editors. I'm happy with ZScarpia's proposal. Mick gold (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by ZScarpia
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 attracted fierce controversy
 * Support: While one can reasonably argue that many of the critiques concentrate on a particular aspect of the book, broad agreement on an exact way to phrase this is unlikely to materialize. Stating that the book has attracted fierce controversy is, I believe, an uncontroversial and NPOV statement which I believe we can find consensus for. Unomi (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I think this is a fair summary of the controversy this book has attracted. Mick gold (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I too agree with this proposal. We should not pass judgement on the book, but rather note that others have done so. RolandR (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support:Supported for the reasons I gave yesterday. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Vote struck out: I'm a bit unsure whether or not I should be voting for a proposal supposed to be mine.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Naughty naughty, here again you make decisions based on polls...--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by Stellarkid
"The book is a best seller in Israel and France, and has generated considerable criticism."
 * Support Short and clear.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Just so I am clear, this proposal is like the one immediately above except that The book has attracted fierce controversy is replaced with The book is a best seller in Israel and France, and has generated considerable criticism. ? Unomi (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [ec]Granted it sounds a bit like, but there is a connotative difference between  "fierce controversy" and "considerable criticism."  "Fierce controversy" is emotive and infuses with the sense of a battle, but  criticism is normal for any popular work and the concept is more  thoughtful.  We can expand on the  criticism (both good and bad) in the body of  the article.  Stellarkid (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For me, the problem of stating "the book has generated considerable criticism" is that it makes it sound as though hostility has been the overwhelming, even universal, reaction to the book, which, I think is a long way from the truth. In the absence of a source, assuming no-one has a source, it also begs the question of how much criticism you have to generate before it becomes considerable.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say not at all. Criticism is not the same thing as hostility  at all.   See for example Literary criticism or from Buzzle the def is  The  term  'literary criticism' is broadly used today to encompass any  discourse  on literature. It includes three distinguishable but  overlapping fields  of inquiry -- literary history, literary theory, and  evaluative  criticism. Historically, literature is viewed as part of a  historical  process. In theory, or poetics, an attempt is made to  describe the  principles of literature, its genres, and its techniques  and functions.  Evaluative criticism concerns the study and analysis  of specific works  and their authors.(my  bolds) In fact we could link criticism to Literary  criticism.  Stellarkid (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then, to avoid ambiguity, wouldn't your proposal be better written: "The book is a best seller in Israel and France, and has generated considerable literary criticism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The criticism it has attracted is not literary criticism, it is academic criticism i.e. pointing out by academics that its arguments and conclusions are fallacious. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * True it is more like Critical historiography perhaps. The book does not pretend to be history and is criticized much the same way as if it is literature.  It is criticized by reviewers as well as academics. Again,  "criticism" in the academic sense is both negative and positive. Stellarkid (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might like to take note of what The New York Times review says: while these ideas are commonplace among historians, they still manage to provoke controversy each time they surface in public, beyond the scholarly world.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And other academics pointing out that there's nothing particularly controversial, historically, in it? -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Differences of opinion do not necessarily imply controversy. It may be agreed to be historically inaccurate, but people may like it for other reasons, or vice-versa.  Stellarkid (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, interesting --WP defines criticism as "Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual." Though there is a followup sentence which rather contradicts the first that "Criticism can mean merely to evaluate without necessarily finding fault;  however, usually the word implies the expression of disapproval." I would go with the merits and faults argument, though it may well be that there is more negative than positive criticism.  It might be a good lead-in for people to wonder just what kind of reviews the book has been getting.  And it is certainly a compromise position to "thoroughly debunked" though I am rather for that one myself.  :) Stellarkid (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, then, to avoid ambiguity and be inclusive, you should reword your proposal as: "The book has been a best seller in Israel and France and has generated considerable amounts of literary and academic criticism examining its merits and faults.'' -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Differences of opinion do not necessarily imply controversy. True, but we have a source who says that the differences here have been large enough to generate a "fierce controversy". -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I have no problem with this wording. I will accept either this wording or the wording above, whichever gets seems to attain consensus first. Unomi (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see how things look when the options (slightly tweaked) are placed side by side:
 * The book has been a best seller in Israel and France and has generated considerable amounts of literary and academic criticism examining its merits and faults.
 * The book has been a best seller in Israel and France and has attracted heated controversy.
 * What do you think?  --  ZScarpia (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of those 2 I would prefer the latter, it is more concise. I mean, really, it sounds like we are expecting that users will only read the lead and not the article. Lets keep the lead short and sweet for now and work on the article body (which the lead should reflect). Unomi (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have a query on stylistic grounds. Currently, second para of lead runs:


 * 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 "Prix Aujourd'hui", 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.

I think this is quite good as lead but it doesn't flow well from:


 * The book has been a best seller in Israel and France and has attracted heated controversy.

Are you trying to reduce the lead to a couple of sentences? Or have I misunderstood? Mick gold (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, not me at least. My preference is still just for a replacement of the last sentence of the first paragraph along the lines of the book has attracted fierce controversy. Something to consider, though, is whether to use Hastings's phrase, attracted fierce controversy, exactly, whether to amend it so that it isn't an exact copy (something like, for example, attracted heated controversy), or whether to use an exact copy and enclose it in quotes. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy we're on same wavelength :) So the last line of first para of lead could be:
 * The book has been described as "controversial".
 * The book has attracted fierce controversy.
 * The book has attracted heated controversy.
 * They all seem OK to me. thanks Mick gold (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, as I'm sure you'd also be be happy with, with quotes: The book has "attracted fierce controversy." -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mick gold (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer "heated" to "fierce" Stellarkid (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is for the quoted version, but I'd be happy to go with the "heated variation" if you'll support that one.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

praise-criticism-neutral
I wonder whether this is the best way to organize responses. It seems to me that the book is being discussed on two levles. First, it is being evaluated as a work of history, and I suspect that more time is needed before we know what consensus if any there is among scholars who are actually expert on Jews during the Roman period. Second, there is some debate between Israeli and Diaspora Jews, about how they view what it means to be Jewish. I think this is clearly exemplified in the reactions of Tom Segev and Simon Schama - tom Segev is saying that this book is what Israel needs, and Schama is saying that the author (an Israeli) does not understand the beliefs of diasporic jews. In a way, Segev and Schama agree - yeah, yeah, I get it that Segev likes the book and Schama does not, I mean they agree in that the book should be judged in terms of Jewish self-understanding. The reason they have different views of the book is because one is Israeli and the other is Galus. This is not a debate among historians, it is a debate between Sabras and Jews in the Galus.

I am not discredeting ANY of the views quoted. I am suggesting that maybe there are two different conversations going on. And perhaps it would clarify things to organize the responses to the book according to these distinct discussions, rather than pro/con/neutral. One section on reviews by experts on the field judging it as a work of dispassinate history, and another section on debates among Jews about Jewish identity, in which there is a sharp divide between Israeliand diasporic Jews.

Sometimes things are not so simple as like - don't like - don't care. In this case I think the reasons for liking or not liking are more important, and show that we can divide people according to different kinds of reasons.

Or if this makes my point clearer - I think it is confusing when we lump together people who like the book but for very different reasons, and then lump together people who do not like the book .. but for different reasons. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the praise/criticism is generally not a good idea. One way or another this type of approach usually ends up pushing some sort of POV. For a work like this simply having a Reception section is typically best giving notable viewpoints without attempting to pigeonhole them. A Controversy section is sometimes (emphasize sometimes) appropriate if the work has generated a nontrivial amount of unrest among some large group but such a section should focus on the nature and reason for the unrest and not try to go too deeply into the viewpoint of any particular side of the controversy (again, doing so easily pulls the discussion out of NPOV). --Mcorazao (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. And I strongly agree that attempting to "lump together people who like the book" is a bad idea for the very reasons stated above. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the reorganisation is a mess. For instance, under the heading As an argument about Jewish identity it contains quotations from reviews which say nothing at all about Jewish identity.      ←   ZScarpia  12:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Source to add info to this article
I'm not sure if this source has already been used/the info in it is already covered, but if not, there is some good stuff in here to include. . Breein1007 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It just proves that this book is a vast nonsense but we already knew that. The page is not a debate about the book but just to present it. Benjil (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The section "DNA Analysis", issues for discussion
However, there are other genetic research concluding that Jews have more similarities with Kurds, Turks and Armenians (non-Semites) than with Palestinian Arabs (Semites). This research does not contradict other genetic research that compare Jews with the Europeans and concluding that Jews have more similarities with the Palestinians than the Europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behruzhimo (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some problems with this section, which makes reference to a paper of Atzmon et al (11 authors) that appeared in a recent issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics. (Harry Ostrer, who is called the group leader in reviews, appears last in the author list. This is not as odd as it sounds.)  I'll list some problems, not all of which I necessarily agree with myself.
 * There are tons of such studies in the literature so focussing on only one of them is dubious. On the other hand, it may be true that this study is more extensive than most.
 * The paper of Atzmon does not mention Shlomo Sand or his book at all.
 * This is an article about a book, not a platform for confirming or refuting the theses advanced in the book.
 * While the paper of Atzmon et al does claim to refute the mostly-Khazar thesis, it does not support a mostly-Middle East thesis. I bet you didn't expect to read the following direct quotation if you have previously only read the reviews:
 * "Two major differences among the populations in this study were the high degree of European admixture (30%–60%) among the Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews and the genetic proximity of these populations to each other compared to their proximity to Iranian and Iraqi Jews. ... The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times, when proselytism was a common Jewish practice. During Greco-Roman times, recorded mass conversions led to 6 million people practicing Judaism in Roman times or up to 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/ Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs." (p857)
 * From this we can see that the study is bad news for Sand's chapter on the Khazars but rather good news for his chapter on the Jews of the Roman Empire.

If anyone wants to read the Atzmon paper but cannot easily obtain it, send me email. Full citation: Gil Atzmon, Li Hao, Itsik Pe’er, Christopher Velez, Alexander Pearlman, Pier Francesco Palamara, Bernice Morrow, Eitan Friedman, Carole Oddoux, Edward Burns, and Harry Ostrer, "Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry", The American Journal of Human Genetics 86, 850–859, June 11, 2010 with 16 pages of supplemental data published separately. Zerotalk 04:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotation of the review from Science should include the contrary part: "Nevertheless, says Rosenberg [geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania], although the study "does not appear to support" the Khazar hypothesis, it doesn't entirely eliminate it either."
 * The article appears to be online . I don't know if this is just a summary; if it is, I would be happy to read the full version. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the whole article. Zerotalk 09:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Zero add a sentence or two to the article about the highly relevant European admixture data for the non-Middle Eastern populations from the AJHG paper.StN (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
I’ve changed the lead para since it breached WP:NPOV. The lead stated:


 * 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. It has generated a heated controversy   although its claims are contradicted by recent DNA studies.

The relevant NPOV guideline states: []


 * The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view.

It would be NPOV to state that The New York Time, Newsweek, and Science journal have claimed that Sand’s book has been contradicted by the genetic studies which have been published in Nature magazine and the American Journal of Human Genetics.

In the section DNA Analysis, I have added Sand's response the the genetic studies published in Nature and the American Journal of Human Genetics. Mick gold (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Repetition and redundancy
The controversy discussed in the section titled "DNA analysis" is addressed in the introductory section as well. Is this really necessary? Nidrosia (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should be found regarding Plaut
The back-and-forth reverts of the Plaut reference are getting close to an WP:Edit war. There are many experienced editors here on this page, so you should be familiar with WP:Requests for comment or other methods of reaching a verdict as to whether Plaut should be cited. Further reverts that are made without a talk page consensus behind them could lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My original research
What I am going to write next could be considered as original research, but I would like it to be present it at least at the talk page, and maybe considered to be added to the article. A few weeks ago I wrote this article Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib about organ donations from Jews and Arabs ond otherwise. While I was researching the article I've learned about few other similar cases involving Jews from all over the world. I believe it is the best prove that the book has no any merits at all. Organs donations were possible only because Jews and Arabs are brothers. It would have not worked otherwise.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your new article is beautifully written, but I don't think it is all that relevant to this article. I, too, believe that Sand's thesis is ridiculous and politically motivated, and has been scientifically debunked (at least as far as the genetic research goes), but I don't think the material you present is appropriate for this article. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Segev
If we are to keep this barely-notable review, an effort should be made to find a source for it - the current link is dead. HupHollandHup (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it took me all of ten seconds to find the correct location, and a further thirty to correct the refs, so I understand why you couldn't spare the time. RolandR (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources and Plaut
According to WP:RS, 'The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.' - without getting into the issue of Plaut as a reliable source, The Jewish Press undoubtedly is one, so please stop removing well cited material, which is notable criticism from an academic, published in a reliable source. While you are at it, you might want to explain why Plaut is "fringe", but the fawning praise from the red-linked Jacques Julliard, apparently sourced to a blog, is perfectly fine. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Plaut is an extremist who is part of the lunatic fringe. He is by no means a reliable source.
 * If you don't think Julliard is a reliable source, remove him from the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinions of Plaut are just that - personal opinions. Actually no - they are also potentially a violation of WP:BLP, so you'd be wise to strike them. Regardless - the opinions appeared in a mainstream publication which is a reliable source - and you have no policy grounds for removing them. HupHollandHup (talk)
 * HupHollandHup is correct. The paragraph on Plaut's review is relevant partly because Plaut is an Israeli university professor, and so is Shlomo Sand. Plaut and Sand are, from an academic point of view, on equal footing. As for the The Jewish Press, it is a well-known American weekly newspaper. There is nothing "fringe" about this. Words such as "lunatic" (used by Malik Shabazz) and "fanatic" (used by Zero0000) are typical of defamatory language. Nidrosia (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, the degree of reliability accorded sources is a matter of consensus. Do you know anywhere where the reliability of The Jewish Press has been discussed or are you just expressing your personal opinion? I very much doubt that The Jewish Press is so prestigious that everything published by it is automatically accorded reliable status. Therefore, the reliability of Plaut as a source on Sand comes into question. Whether two people have equivalent academic status isn't the way that questions of reliability are decided. Note that WP:RS is a guideline. But WP:BLP is a policy ... and it states: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. Do you really think that a polemic by Plaut fulfils the criteria? And is it a secondary source?      ←   ZScarpia  02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I've got this straight. Referring to Plaut as part of the lunatic fringe is a BLP violation in your eyes, but quoting Plaut in order to label Sand an antisemite is just fine by you. Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Plaut is an economist and so invoking his university position is useless. It is more relevant that he has a reputation as an extremist. Zerotalk 04:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Plaut is an economist, and Sand is a historian of contemporary European history. Neither Plaut nor Sand are experts on Jewish history in the Roman period, which is the central topic of Sand's book. According to Prof. Martin Goodman, who, according to Wikipedia, "specialises in Jewish history during the Roman period, including the socioeconomic, religious and political conditions of the Jews, and their interactions with other peoples of the Roman Empire," Sand's book has "received praise from historians and others who ought to have known better" (The Times Literary Supplement, February 26, 2010). Goodman goes even further than Plaut in emphasizing Sand's status as an amateur scholar in this particular field: "What has possessed Shlomo Sand, a Tel Aviv historian of contemporary European history, to write about a subject of which he patently knows so little? The answer is refreshingly simple. His aim, which he does not try to disguise, is to undermine the claim of Israeli Jews who come from diaspora communities to have returned to the land from which their people originated." According to Goodman, "no scholar who works on Jewish history in the Roman period has deigned to pay it (i.e., the book) any attention". The reference to Plaut's review should not be censored, because many of Plaut's views are shared by at least one leading scholar, namely, Martin Goodman. (Personally, I disagree with Plaut and Goodman, but I am opposed to arbitrary censorship.) Nidrosia (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is very strange. You think we can cite a known fanatic and convicted libeler because his views (according to you) overlap that of a scholar?  Well, no, it doesn't work like that.  And I don't see Goodman accusing Sand of being an antisemite or associating him with Nazis so you are wrong that Goodman supports Plaut.  If you want to cite Goodman directly (within reasonable limits), go ahead.  Just leave out the libelous bile from fundamentalist zealots.  Zerotalk 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect the decision, even if some issues remain unresolved. Nidrosia (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Malik and Zero here. I really don't see how quoting such a dubious source would add much to this article.  I was a little upset by Malik's "lunatic fringe" comment.  I'm a proud member of the "lunatic fringe" and it's insulting to suggest I'd associate w/ Plaut. NickCT (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See related discussion at BLP/N RolandR (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Question; is there any reason why the Jewish Press is less reliable than the Jewish Week, Village Voice, or Al Jazeera? I believe all three of those have been acceptable sources for BLPs. Maybe it is, but I'd like to know why. -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, I don't think The Jewish Press is the issue. It's Steven Plaut. On matters of economics he may be an expert, but when it comes to ancient Jewish history or calling people antisemites.... well, BLP rules won't allow me to say on-wiki what needs to be said about him. I can say that he has been convicted of libel for some of his antics. His views concerning this book are about as relevant—and as notable—as yours or mine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This was already explained to you: A reliable source on wikipedia can be a media outlet OR a domain expert. If a reliable source like TJP publishes Plaut, we don't also require that Plaut be a domain expert. If we did, about 95% of the material on wikipedia sourced to newspapers and magazines would be removed, as the journalists are rarely, if ever, subject matter experts. I removed the parts of his quote the discuss Sand directly, to avoid giving editors who don't like Plaut the pretense of BLP violations - but if his views on the book were notable enough for a reliable source like TJP to be published - they are notable enough  for our article. Certainly at least as notable as a fawning positive review by an rd-linked French academic apparently published on a blog. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ( Note: Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting. )
 * You say that The Jewish Press is a reliable source. However, unless you can provide evidence such as a previous discussion on the matter, then that is only your personal opinion. You have presented reliability as something absolute; sources are either reliable (and, presumably, everything they say must be regarded as a fact) or they are not. Actually, on Wikipedia, reliability is not regarded in such a black and white way. Instead, it is regarded as variable. At one end of the scale you have highly-regarded academic journals whose contents are subject to a rigorous review process. Short of that you have sources published by academic presses (and, obviously, some academic presses are seen as more prestigious - and therefore probably more reliable - than others). News organisation sources would generally be seen as occupying territory to the unreliable side of those. As the News organizations section of the  Identifying reliable sources guideline explains, the reliability of articles in such sources should be taken on a case by case basis. But then, the Plaut article isn't really being used to present facts is it? For Wikipedia purposes, facts are things that reliable sources don't disagree about; everything else is facts about opinions. Mostly, what the Plaut article is presenting is Plaut's opinion about Sand. Wikipedia articles are supposed to present the significant viewpoints presented in reliable sources. I think that most of the editors commenting here would not accept that Plaut is a reliable source (after having read a number of Plaut's articles, that includes me) or that, being extreme, his is a significant viewpoint.       ←   ZScarpia  16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And this was already explained to you: You are wrong. If The Jewish Press were to print the ramblings of the village idiot, it wouldn't transform the village idiot into a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Press, a reliable source, published the opinion of a notable academic who is a critic of Sand, and which is relevant to the topic at hand. As far as WP:RS, that's the end of the story. If you wish to make other policy arguments, go ahead, but the WP:RS one does not hold water. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, and since the onus is on you and others who wish to include the material, you ought to try another tack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply asserting I am mistaken is not an argument. And while it is true that I need to get consensus for this (a consensus which appears to be forming, with Nidrosia and Avi supporting my position), stonewalling without a policy-based argument, as you are doing, in order to prevent consensus, is disruptive editing, and conduct unbecoming an administrator. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me add my opinion. Relaibility of the publisher as a source is not relevant here, as no facts that require reliability are in dispute (unless anyone doubts that the Jewsih Press adequately reproduced Plaut's words). As for Plaut, his views are considered extreme by some people, and so should not be taken as facts but only as opinions. But as opinions they must be there, because I believe the opnions section should give a range of opinions from people with a range of political positions. In other places Wikipedia reports views of Hamas leaders, Iran's leaders, Meir Kahane etc, etc. It is strange that people object to reporting views of an academic because they consider him extremist. Even if they are extreme, this is no resason not to report them. I can't even see what motivates those who oppose inclusion of these views. Defense of Sand? But criticism by far more respected and left-leaning figures like Simon Schama carries much greater weight. Respectfully. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me type this slowly in the hope you get it this time. Everything published in a newspaper isn't equally reliable. Classified advertisements, for example, don't carry any weight. The opinion of an economics professor who is out of his depth discussing ancient history does not magically become a reliable source because The Jewish Press or The New York Times reprints his FrontPage column. It is an extremist screed, not a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please spare me your condescension. Your opinions of Plaut are noted, but you, unlike The Jewish press, are not a reliable, 3rd party published source. As far as wikipedia policy goes, when an academic publishes an Op-Ed about a book in a reliable source, we can use that material in an article about that book, per the WP:RS policy. He does not need to be an expert on ancient Jewish history anymore than a the others quoted on this page, who are cited approvingly (Frederic Raphael, Burg) HupHollandHup (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik, I really do not know much about this fracas, but isn't it true that Sand is not a professional historian, or at least of the Levant, so how is he any more in his depth than is Plaut, speaking solely in terms of areas of expertise. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, wouldn't it be better to use the opinions of writers whose speciality is ancient Middle Eastern history or, say, genetics rather than (based on Sand's speciality being modern European, rather than ancient Middle Eastern, history) somebody who is not an expert in any relevant field.      ←   ZScarpia  17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, that would be a good compromise. It would involve removing all the fawning praise currently cited to Avraham Burg (politician), Frederic Raphael (screenwriter), Jacques Julliard (relatively unknown French journalist), and many, if not all, of the others. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * {edit conflict} Also see the Reliable sources section of the  Verifiabilty policy : The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. To me, that means, in contradiction to the guideline you quoted, that the reliability of a source is dependent on a number of factors combined, rather than one of them in isolation.        ←   ZScarpia  16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading into that what is not there. To me, the sentence 'All three can affect reliability' says that even someone who is not a domain expert (e.g. Plaut, or Sand) can be considered a reliable source if published by a reliable media - the media's reliability affects the author's, increasing it to the point of usability by Wikipedia. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, come on, reliability is important when discussing facts, not opinions. Opinions cannot be reliable or unreliable. They can be notable or not. - BorisG (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris, I agree (see the end of the comment I made at 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)). But, as HupHollandHup sees one of the guidelines as pivotal, I thought that it would be relevant to show that it possibly contradicts the Verifiability policy. (I suspect that the part of the guideline being quoted may have been edited in the recent past, but haven't confirmed yet whether that is the case)        ←   ZScarpia  17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am actually not making an argument for inclusion based on WP:RS, I am just rebutting the argument that the material can be excluded based on WP:RS. If we all agree that WP:RS does not apply here - that's a good step forward toward consensus for including the material. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does apply, to the extent that articles should represent the main points of view presented in reliable sources. I think it's true to say that those opposing the inclusion of Plaut's opinion are doing it on the ground that his article is neither a reliable source or, probably, representative of one of the main points of view.      ←   ZScarpia  17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. Boris G wrote "Opinions cannot be reliable or unreliable", and you wrote "I agree". So how can WP:RS apply? HupHollandHup (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think ZScarpia is essentially saying that Plaut's opinion is not notable. But I think it is representative of a considerable section (a sizeable minority) of Israeli society (which includes, but is not limited to, almost all settlers). As such, I think this opinion is notable. As for actual publication, who cares where it is published? Let't try to avoid wikilawyering. - BorisG (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's what he's saying, he should be citing WP:N, not WP:RS. I agree with you that Plaut's opinion is notable and representative of a sizable POV. As such, I can't see a policy-based argument for excluding his comments about the book. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If Plaut's view is 'representative of a sizable POV' you should be able to find a source for that. It is especially relevant if you can find another published source which considers Plaut's review of Sands' book to be significant. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we going to apply that standard to all the opinions in the article? Specifically, are we going to look for a secondary source that considers Jacques Julliard's review of Sands' book to be significant, or Judt's? HupHollandHup (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the person who said Plaut's opinion is "representative of a sizable POV". Nobody else made a similar claim about anybody else, did they? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is self evident that his opinions are notable, if only for the fact that the Op-Ed got published, by multiple sources. But since you seem to want to play wikilawyering games, I am now contesting that Judt's or Julliard's opinions are notable or representative, and asking that you either find secondary sources that say that about them (according to the same standard you and Ed are applying to Plaut), or remove their non-notable opinions from the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Plaut's views are not only fringe, but defamatory. As I wrote in the ANI discussion about this article, "Steven Plaut has been convicted by an Israeli court of libelling Israeli academic Neve Gordon. There has been constant sockpuppet vandalism on the Gordon article, with attempts to introduce not only the original libellous material, but further defamation of the judge in the case and of others. Sand has not (yet?) sued Plaut for libel, but we see the same pattern beginning to repeat itself -- make wild allegations of Nazi sympathies, then use Wikipedia, which has a much larger readership than Plaut's own mucksheets, to spread this defamation far and wide. We should not allow Wikipedia to become an accomplice in this campaign of defamation and abuse against those Plaut seeks to vilify." That is why such charges from him should be excluded from this article. RolandR (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The outcome of that ANI discussion, where you previously posted this self-serving rationale, was that your actions were found to be inappropriate violations of BLP, and were oversighted. It didn't work there, and it won't work here. I've removed any references Plaut made about Sand, leaving only his opinions about the book. As such, there are no BLP-based arguments here, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) There's nothing self-serving about what Roland wrote. It's the truth. (3) Please learn the difference between WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) it was self-serving inasmuch as it was offered as a defense against a complaint about his BLP-violating behavior (and, incidentally, your identical behavior). It was rejected as a defense, and that behavior was found to be inappropriate. (2) I stand corrected on the technical term for what was done, and will rephrase: The edit summaries that you and Roland used on the article were found to be violations of this project's BLP policy, and were deleted, using WP:REVDEL, not oversighted. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to think of a term which does not breach WP:NPA to describe someone attempting to include a piece of character assassination by Steven Plaut in an article, while lecturing others about Wikipedia's BLP policy! RolandR (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [WP:AGF] - BorisG (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your actions (and Malik's) were found to be BLP violations by the wiki community, giving me very good cause to lecture you about Wikipedia's BLP policy. That you continue to try and defend them indicates that you still do not seem to have grasped that what you did was wrong. This leads me to to believe that, as suggested on the yet unresolved ANI thread, administrative action is needed to get that point across. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)What was found inappropriate was not my argument, but the edit summaries by me and other editors who reject Plaut's value here. Nobody questioned their truth, by the way. That has nothing to do with the content of my argument above, which is valid irrespective of the appropriateness or otherwise of edit summaries. RolandR (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * {multiple edit conflict} Reliability is a property of sources. Truth is a property of facts. Notability is a property of opinions. What Wikipedia is supposed to represent is facts, including facts about opinions. Those facts must be verifiable. To be verifiable, it must  be possible to show that they are contained in reliable sources. In addition, for facts about opinions to be included, those opinions must represent one of the main viewpoints contained in reliable sources. As far as the inclusion of opinions is concerned, therefore, where and who their sources are published by is important, as is who the author is.          ←   ZScarpia  18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite a bit of confusion on this point. The reliability of Plaut is not an issue, since WP:RS need only apply to the source that quoted Plaut. In general I don't think either WP:RS or WP:V rule out this quotation. The real issue is WP:BLP. The quotation has Plaut making an extremely offensive claim about a living person, similar to a claim about another Israeli academic that got him convicted of libel in an Israeli court. It might be that The Jewish Press decided to take the chance of being sued for publishing this, but Wikipedia is definitely not willing to take the chance (speaking now with my administrator's hat on). I think the minimum requirement for inclusion of this would be a go-ahead from Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. Until then I believe there is an obligation (even trumping 3RR) to keep the quotation out. Zerotalk 08:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Zero, I haven't read the quote. If it even remotely violates BLP then it is off. Better to err on the side of caution. No need to bother lawyers. It is not a crucial case. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Zero has read the quote, either, at least not after I have edited it. It currently says nothing about Sand, only describes the book. If it is permissible to describe the book with fawning praise as a "fearless book [that] explodes the myth of a unique Jewish people", sourced to a blog (!), it should be equally permissible, nay, required per WP:NPOV, to give the other end of the spectrum of opinion, which describes the book as "Recycling myths popularized by Neo-Nazi  web sites, Sand’s book is a pseudo-analysis that claims that most Jews today are frauds, converts from the Khazar Turkic tribe, impersonators of Jews.", sourced to a well known and reputable newspaper. Where is the BLP issue here? I don't see it. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The blog in which the laudatory review appeared is described in the Wikipedia article about its author as "a renowned blog". It is published by Le Monde. Seems a very reliable source to me. RolandR (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think it is borderline. I know, it is about the book, but ... you know what I mean. And I think sentences based on blogs should not be there either. - BorisG (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it borderline? It says nothing about Sand, only criticizes the book using admittedly harsh language. Look, the book is highly controversial, its major points have either been completely debunked by scientific genetic evidence, or have been harshly criticized by academic experts. And yet, the "other reviews" section consists of 5 positive reviews, and no negative ones, even though those not only exist, they probably make up the majority of reviews! Perhaps, if the non-notable glowing praise (by Jilliard, Burg, Raphael) was removed, the section woudl be balanced without Plaut's review, but as it is right now, it clearly violates the WP:NPOV policy. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the balance is skewed but I don't actually agree that such charged language adds anything to the debate. If anything, it works more against Plaut than against the book. I think we need to find more serious academic reviews, preferably in peer-reviewed sources. And we should stick to what they say, whether we like it or not. I don't think insults help, even if they are insults against the book. And supporters of the book should also be held to the same stanard. - BorisG (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, can we agree to remove the non-academic praise (the 3 listed above, for a start), alongside the removal of Plaut? HupHollandHup (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Come off it, HupHollandHup. A description of a book in offensive terms is an attack on the author of the book. Zerotalk 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Come off it' is not an argument (but is usually a good indicator that no real argument is available), and criticism of a book, even in harsh terms, is not BLP-violating attack on the author. If it were, no criticism section of any kind would be allowable on Wikipedia per WP:BLP, on anything - books, actions, opinions etc... Incidentally, WP:BLP applies the same standards to criticism as it does to praise ("Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone") - so do you agree to the removal of the non-academic fawning praise sections, if we were to remove Plaut? HupHollandHup (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to commit libel/slander it is not necessary to name the target. It is only necessary to provide enough information to identify the target to a reasonable listener. This is legal fact. You are also wrong that the issue is balanced between criticism and praise; actually the Wikimedia Foundation is very much vigilant against publication of defamatory material. You confuse the rules designed for article improvement with the rules based on legal consideration; see WP:LIBEL. Zerotalk 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on both counts. I never made any argument about the ability to identify the target, so let's dispense with that strawman argument quickly. What I argued was that "target" here is a book, not a person. I've already taken this to WP:BLPN, where the unanimous opinion was EXACTLY what I had written here earlier, that criticism of a book, even in harsh terms, is not a BLP-violating attack on the author. To quote the editors who commented there: "it's a direct quote from a notable source. If so I would think it's acceptable since it is a criticism of a public person's public work."; "quotes from a well sourced review of a book are not an attack on the author (particularly when they say that the book is worthless and dishonest, not the author)." You simply do not understand the BLP policy, and I encourage you to spend some time studying it in detail. I quoted the language about criticism and praise directly from WP:BLP - they are treated equally. I will ask you again: since you are now apparently basing your opposition to the Plaut quote on WP:BLP, and since WP:BLP explictly syays "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone", would you agree to the removal of the non-academic fawning praise sections, if we were to remove Plaut? HupHollandHup (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you write a book and I claim it promotes Nazi philosophy, you will not accuse me of calling you a Nazi. Sure. As for policy, as an administrator for a long time there is a chance I know more about it than you do.  Finally, I think Raphael should go too since his qualifications seem marginal.  Zerotalk 01:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the topic here, and no, I would not be able to sue you for defamation if you claimed I was a Nazi on account of it. All this is beside the point: I took this to the relevant notice board, and the community agrees with me, not you. You are here as an involved editor, not as an administrator, and that's a good thing, as quite frankly, you've displayed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding policy, as evidenced by this latest issue, which I took to a notice board and confirmed there that I was correct and you are wrong. I'm glad to see you agree that Raphael should go. What are Assouline's qualifications? what are Burg's? HupHollandHup (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not correct: The editors involved in a discussion at a noticeboard do not always have full knowledge of the issues. For example, at WP:BLPN I commented on the general issue, and that was before someone revealed that this article is involved in the issue. I have not examined this thread, but it appears this edit is at the core of the issue, and a quotation starting "Recycling myths popularized by Neo-Nazi web sites..." was given as a criticism of the subject of this article. Given this example, it is clear that WP:BLP needs careful consideration before using any quote from Plaut here. I would apply WP:REDFLAG to conclude that if Plaut wrote that a book recycled neo-nazi myths, then Plaut should not be regarded as a reliable source unless other known-reliable sources support such views (in which case, Plaut's quote is not needed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct source of review
In the course of following and responding to comments above, I noticed a mistake in the article. The review which describes Sand's work as "well documented and fearless" was wrongly attributed to Jacques Julliard. The review does indeed appear on his blog; but he was merely linking to the original source, a review by Pierre Assouline in his blog on Le Monde, "la république des lettres". I have made the necessary corrections to the article. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is blog a reliable source? - BorisG (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the guideline, "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Le Monde is an eminently reliable source, and Assouline is a professional journalist, biographer, historian and reviewer. I think that this blog (one of the leading Francophone blogs, according to French Wikipedia) meets these criteria. RolandR (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Assouline is a journalist, he is not a historian, and what French wikipedia says of his blog is of absolutely no relevance - it is the same as relying on the English Wikipedia (i.e a no-no), as you did earlier when you claimed his blog was "reknowned" - a wiki editor slapped that descriptor there with no source, another editor has meanwhile removed that descriptor. Do we have any evidence that the blog is subject to Le Monde's full editorial control? If not, it is not an acceptable source. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone: let's look for more reliable (preferably academic) sources on both sides. I am sure the article will be improved if most comments are from experts and not journalists or political activists, and published in academic journals, books, or serious newspapers, rather than borderline sources like blogs. Prominent politicians are ok as well, I think. Does this make sense to everyone? - BorisG (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fine with me - I've suggested it myself, and indicated what it would involve - removing both Plaut's review, as well as Assouline's, Burg's and Raphael's, at a minimum. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Burg is ok as he is a prominent political figure. Different from a journalist or an activist. - BorisG (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would a politician's opinion be any better than a journalist? It's more than likely worse, as politicians are partisan, by definition. HupHollandHup (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Prominence of the person is important. Obviously opinion of the former head of the Jewish Agency is important. PM's would be even more important. If a journalist has the same prominence, that would be important as well. - BorisG (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the point is moot - the source provided for Burg's opinion does not in fact mention Burg at all, so I've removed it. I've also removed the Raphael quote, as there was a consensus here that he has no relevant qualifications. I am waiting to hear more opinions about the qualifications of Assouline, and the reliability of his blog post. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else want to take a stab at establishing why a non-English blog post by a French journalist who is not a subject matter expert is notable enough for this article, before I remove it? HupHollandHup (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierre Assouline is on the editorial board of the French monthly L'Histoire, for which he regularly reviews works of history. He is certainly qualified to review Sand's book, and his opinion is notable. RolandR (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He is not a historian, and the view in question was not published in the French monthly L'Histoire, but rather on a blog. Anything else you got? HupHollandHup (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the definition of what a historian is tends to be a bit fuzzy. In any case, in my opinion, even people who are not historians in the strictest sense of the term have valuable things to say about the book. I think that, besides BLP issues, the questions should really be notability as a source of opinion and whether it is reasonable to regard particular commentators as well qualified to make the judgements that they have done. As far as Pierre Assouline is concerned, his blog is published by Le Monde. As far as source reliability is concerned, then, it would depend on whether it can be shown that Le Monde exercises editorial control over the blog I think. Notability is another matter. Note that there are other sources used in the article who could be said not to have any particular expertise on the subjects dealt with in the book. It would be good to develop a consistent approach to which sources to include or omit.        ←   ZScarpia  11:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've scoured the Assouline blog post for the quote to no avail. It seems to have been taken from a different source. I'm removing the entire citation until the correct source can be found (Mistahkurtzz (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)).
 * This is very odd. When I first introduced the citation a year ago (correcting the misattribution to Juilliard) the statement was certainly there. Now it appears not to be. I'm trying to find what has happened; unfortunately, this page does not seem to be archived by the Wayback Machine. Can anyone else shed any light on this? RolandR (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this what you are looking for? Zerotalk 09:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; but I have reread this several times today, and it doesn't have the text in question. It certainly did last September, which was why I substituted it for the previous unsatisfactory citation. Having searched for several hours this morning, I have found this; the same text, this time ascribed to Juilliard rather than Assouline, on a site of uncertain reliability. The article there claims to be from Le Nouvel Observateur, but gives no further details, and I cannot find the article on the NO site. As I say, this is very odd, since I definitely confirmed the quote on the Le Monde site last September, ascribed to Assouline. Nor can I find the text I then saw on the Wayback Machine. I would have taken a screen shot at the time had I known that the text would disappear. RolandR (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone asked on the article on the French wiki that a reference is found for this quote. A lot of editors take care of this article there. Answer should come soon...
 * I could not find this myself but browsing the web it sounds clear it doesn't come from Assouline but from Julliard. (More, Assouline is not opposed to Sand but not friendly enough to write what is quoted here. Julliard on the contrary is a good friend (sic) of Sand). Assouline quoted Julliard (reason why maybe it was sourced from him initially) from Nouvel Obs but unfortunately the initial article cannot be reached any more.
 * 81.247.183.106 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits
I don't remember now exactly how I came across this article a couple of hours ago while out on a wikiwalk. But I found a broken link to Haaretz, went to repair it, and found the Haaretz article interesting enough that I got drawn into making more extensive changes than I initially intended. I'm skeptical of Sand's hypothesis, but I'm not qualified to evaluate it, actually, knowing as little as I do about Mideast peoples in general and about Judaism in particular. But it was a fun exercise, and I learned a little about Jewish history by looking at some of the canonical articles on the subject here. I hope I've improved this one just a bit in the process, but more knowledgable editors on Jewish history or the Mideast in ancient times are more than welcome to correct any errors I may have introduced. If I've made any I'd be grateful for a quick note to my talk page to let me know, since I'm not really interested enough in this article to keep it on my watchlist. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Translator's Note
This section is only 2 sentences long. It read:
 * The translation into English was carried out by Yael Lotan. She calls the book bold and ambitious, "forensically dissects the official story — and demonstrates the construction of a nationalist myth and the collective mystification that this requires".

Surely the important aim for this article is to describe accurately 1) the content of Sand's book, and 2) the criticisms and responses to the book. This 2 sentence section imho doesn't add anything substantive and I've removed it. Revert if you strongly disagree. Mick gold (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DNA origins
The DNA origins section of the article has just been modified. Editors may be interested to read what Ellen Levy-Coffman had to say about the research being done up to 2005 and the researchers involved: Ellen Levy-Coffman, A mosaic of people: the Jewish story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence, Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Spring 2005.    ←   ZScarpia  00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally flawed
This article does NOT meet wikipedia standards (presuming such exist) as it is in essence a long diatribe against one controversial position. The article is full of unsourced assertions meant to undermine Sand's work. The amount of space given to the DNA issue is also odd as the topic is barely coivered in the book. Instead, the article should simply note that the DNA 'evidence' is barely discussed (and Sand states that there are flaws in the methodology used) while linking to articles that explore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emory1989 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts ...
I think that the material related to recent genetic testing should be removed from the Lead to the body of the article. The Lead should be returned to the state where it just noted that the book had "generated a heated controversy," At the moment, in my opinion, the Lead section reads very oddly.

The new material contains some odd features. Firstly, it states that a major thesis of the book has been contradicted without stating what that thesis is, which must bemuse a lot of readers. Secondly, it talks in terms of journalists' claims, when what we should be interested in is what the scientists have to say.

On the subject of the origin of Eastern European Jews in the article as a whole, I find it curious that it is so lacking in detail on what Sand actually says, for which the book could fairly easily be used as a source without indulging in original research. For instance, the article could mention that Sand bases his arguments on linguistic and historical written evidence. That being the case, it would be good to know what Sand's critics have to say about those arguments. The article could also mention what Sand has to say about the DNA tests conducted prior to the writing of the book, which is that, for instance, the results of succeeding tests contradicted previous ones, though Sand does concede that they had firmly established the close-relatedness of Cohens.

If I remember rightly, what Sand argues is that the main ancestral source of Eastern European Jews is from a migration of Middle Eastern Jews northwards and from local conversions rather than Western European Jews migrating eastwards. The question of the relative contributions of migrants to converted locals is left open, though. As far as I can see, the tests don't actually contradict Sand as clarify what the relative contributions were.

Ironically, the Newsweek article by Sharon Begley seems to go further than Sand when talking about conversion to Judaism in the Roman era: During that period Jews proselytized with an effectiveness that would put today’s Mormons to shame: at the height of the Roman Empire, as the Roman historian Josephus chronicled, mass conversions produced 6 million practicing Jews, or 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire.

   ←   ZScarpia  02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. I also see some problem with that section of the intro. I agree totally on the point about journalists views trumping experts/geneticists views as has recently been attempted here, (see later detail*) and agree that as you say it discusses something BEFORE clarifying what that something is. But that could be fixed with a bit of a rewrite. (Viz. mentioning teh Khazars) Basically  I see that section as summarising the position that is later gone into in more detail under the DNA sub-section. I myself have no hard opinion on whether that is necessary or not in the intro. But lean towards its inclusion and better wording to adress your concerns.
 * *About a month ago I added a summary of the understanding of a Michigan University geneticist to create what I see as better balance and greater accuracy of consensus view in the introduction. I think. It has been reworded twice in that time. Now someone is deleting it all together for reasons that I think are not justifiable. At present we have a summary of how some journalists think that there is no genetical research to support the Khazar hypothesis. That apparently is NOT supported by the evidence according to this geneticist/expert. He says the evidence is not conclusive either way. The intro did not reflect that ambiguity before my addition. On the contrary, it claimed there was no ambiguity. NoMoreMrNiceGuy keeps deleteing the balancing statement for reasons that I don't believe hold up under scrutiny. Firstly becuase he thought the source did not include any such statement like that. Then h when challenged, to saying the source didn't support the wording in the leader. And then when I attempted to adress his concern with another rewite, he just included the exact actual quote which I pointed him to and which already appears under the appropriate DNA RESEARCH heading later on the page. I think a summary of the quote is more appropriate as it is balancing a summary of others viewpoints which is also without quotes = better balance. In conclusion, if we retain the journalsist viewpoints my position is that to ONLY say the evidence does not support the Khazar hypothesis is neither fair, nor balanced nor even accurate. Therefore I would like the balancing addition from the Michigan geneticist to remain in some form.
 * On the other hand, if we take your view and delete this part altogether then the problem I have with it is eliminated AND that would then avoid an edit war between myself and NoMoreMrNiceGuy :-J --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)
 * I disagree. First of all, Science is an academic scientific journal, so your argument about journalists vs. scientists just doesn't fly. The Science article specifically puts the genetic claims in the context of Sand's book, and this information is therefor very appropriate in this article.
 * Second, we have several very high quality RS making a claim, and there is no reason not to include it, per wikipedia policy. Even if they are journalists and not scientists. Do you have a policy based objection to including this stuff?
 * If you want to add more about Sand's thesis using his book as the source, feel free to do so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think its being questioned whether the Science journalists opinions are "appropriate" for the article or not. The question was whether that is "appropriate" in the introduction or not. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Several high quality RS published something that puts his main theory in question. Why shouldn't that be in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly notable, as reflected in RS coverage, and therefore appropriate for the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NMMNG, when you say that it puts Sand's "main theory" into question, what exactly do you mean by his main theory?       ←   ZScarpia  23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, his main theory regarding the origin of Eastern European Jews, which is a major part of a larger theory about the origins of modern Jews in general. Better? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sand's "main theory" is not at all about Jewish history in the sense of what happened to Jews over hundreds of years, but rather about historiography -- how this history has come to be written and reinterpreted over time. So the question of the extent to which European Jews originate from migrants from the Middle East compared rather than from converts in Europe is actually marginal. He is more interested, and his book is more concerned, in how this question has been discussed by different historians, and the ideological influences leading to this. If you choose to disagree with his thesis, you should at least disagree with what he writes, and not with a superficial and misleading pastiche. RolandR (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support following ZScarpia's suggestion to remove both the journalists' reports on the genetic studies and the geneticist's rejoinder from the article lead. They would be better discussed in the body of the article.StN (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Some Jewish Hapmap Project and genetic research links:


 * A copy of New York University's own, clearly written, press release about the recent research.
 * Langone Medical Center homepage.
 * Langone Medical Center faculty and staff.
 * Speaker biography for Harry Ostrer: Harry Ostrer, M.D. is a long-time investigator of the genetics of the Jewish people. He has chronicled this field in a forthcoming book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People (Oxford University Press, 2011). For over 30 years, he has studied the genetic basis of Mendelian disorders in Jewish populations and implemented new genetic tests and screening programs to benefit Jewish people.
 * Common Genetic Threads Link Thousands of Years of Jewish Ancestry: Science Daily report on Harry Ostrer's recent research. Directly contradicting Sand, Ostrer says: ''"We have shown that Jewishness can be identified through genetic analysis, so the notion of a Jewish people is plausible."
 * Analysis of Ashkenazi Jewish Genomes Reveals Diversity, History: 2010 Science Daily report on work done by a team at Emory University (whose results have been published online). "Through genomic analysis, researchers at Emory University School of Medicine have shown that the Ashkenazi Jewish population is genetically more diverse than people of European descent, despite previous assumptions that Ashkenazi Jews have been an isolated population." "The researchers were able to estimate that between 35 and 55 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome comes from European descent." "'Our study represents the largest cohort of Ashkenazi Jews examined to date with such a high density of genetic markers, and our estimate of admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates that used the Y chromosome to calculate European admixture at between five and 23 percent,' Bray says." Despite showing that the Ashkenazi Jewish population is genetically more diverse than people of European descent, Bray says ''"that his group's analysis agrees with a recently published study from New York University and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and supports estimates of a high level of European admixture, accounting for up to half of the genetic make-up of contemporary Ashkenazi."
 * Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese: Science Daily story from 2000 on the work of Harry Ostrer.
 * Jerusalem Post article by Judy Siegel-Itzkovitch on the setting-up of the Jewish Hapmap project.
 * Collection of Jewish Hapmap project links.
 * Ellen Levy-Coffman, A mosaic of people: the Jewish story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence, Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Spring 2005.
 * Dieneke's Anthropology Blog 1, 2, 3. 4.
 * The Jewish Genetics topic on the AnthroScape human biodiversity forum (some interesting graphics, but also some rather disturbing white-supremacist-sounding comments). Links to the Jews' European and Middle Eastern Ancestry (YigalSchmendrik seems to know his stuff) and European Population Structure population genetics threads.

   ←   ZScarpia  02:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (latest redaction: 23:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

A review of a couple of books on Jewish genetics, including one by Harry Ostrer: The New York Review of Books - Richard C. Lewontin - Is There a Jewish Gene?, 6 December 2012.    ←   ZScarpia  21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worthy to mention that even in antiquity this same argument has been made, ergo Josephus' books: Against Apion, Antiquities of the Jews. Manson 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)


 * If you can find reliable sources that discuss The Invention of the Jewish People and the promulgation of similar theories in ancient times, please bring them here for discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)