Talk:The Thirteenth Tribe/Archive 1

Modifications 27th December 2009
I mentioned the "French background" for Khazar theory (Renan, Bloch, Ferro) as Koestler is only a publcist not a true historian. I adapted Sholomo Sand to Shlomo Sand as this seems the spelling in Wikipedia. Strange that someone needed to revert these changes the next day. Obviously, I do understand why the contents of the book is so disturbing for some Ashkenazim (and how it has also be instrumentalized by anti-Israeli groups). In my humble opinion it is not so a foolish theory but the evidences for those Dark ages are scarce. It seems more documented for the decline of the Khazar kingdom than for its rise and conversion. Koestler himself is polite enough in his prose and introduction to present it as a (probable) theory. Anyway, I feel that the main article should deal more with the book itself.85.2.31.21 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically...
"Ironically, Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups."

This does not count as very scientific or factual sentence. If we paraphrase it somewhat then it amounts to demagoguery saying that if some jews are not semites, the the antisemites have won :P --Magabund 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. Maybe we're parsing the sentence differently. It is a fact that many (or at least some) anti-Semitic groups (as well as individuals) have seized upon Koestler's thesis to try to use to their advantage. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * May I suggest using the term "anti-Jewish" instead of anti-Semitic here? --MacRusgail 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why? (I actually prefer "anti-Jewish" or, more precisely in the case of the groups being referred to here, "Jew-hating", in general; but why in this particular case?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As Magabund says, there is a contradiction in the sentence. If the hate groups are anti-Ashkenazi, and are actually trying to deny their ?Semiticity, then they still hate the Jewish Ashkenazi, but not for being Semitic, as they don't believe that they actually are! Personally I think the Arabs are ironically more Semitic in ancestry and culture, having retained the language, having Judaean ancestry, and probably mixed less with European peoples. Koestler was not really anti-Jewish, I don't think, in this book... in fact, some say he was actually trying to undermine anti-Semitism. --MacRusgail 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's still no contradiction. "Anti-semitism", "antisemitism", however you want to spell it, isn't about hatred of Semites -- it's about hatred of Jews, regardless of origin; and the groups that use the Khazar theme don't like Jews who are Ashkenazi, even if they aren't of middle eastern descent, any more than they like Jews who are of middle eastern descent. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that most people do not realize just how the term "anti-Semite" came into being: it was cooked up by a Jew hater, Wilhlem Marr, who wanted to make his pathology sounds scientific instead of sick. Anti-Semites, ironically enough, use this ignorance because they want to erase a word that pegs them so thoroughly. As always, everyone: knowledge is power! 96.231.116.193 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There might also be anti-ashkenazi jews who use this book.


 * I think the proper term should be "anti-Jewish". You do find phrases like "sons of Shem" in older anti-Jewish tracts though. The term anti-semitic is very misused. --MacRusgail 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * MacRusgail got an idea what I was talking about. I would like to see the list of "many" or "some" antisemitic groups who use this thesis. Could Palestinians be described as antisemitic group? Here it seems it has been connected, because consecutive sentences attribute its usage to antisemites and then Palestinians. --Magabund 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

middle-eastern genetic testing
The article says: "while there has been mixing with various European populations by Ashkenazi Jews over the centuries, there remains a clearly identifiable Middle Eastern genetic element in virtually all Ashkenazim."

Isn't Turkey part of the middle east and wouldn't Khazars also be middle eastern? This part needs clarification.


 * Turkey is BOTH Europe and the Middle East. In fact, it's the original "Asia", although most Americans don't seem aware of that. --MacRusgail 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. The 2. research paper uses even wider term "near east". Of course one genetic study does not "disprove" anything, it "contradicts". If some next study finds that Ashkenazim have some "Khazar genes" would it "prove" Koestler's thesis? No, it would only "support" it.. --Magabund 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkey and Turkic are slightly different. Khazars were technically a Turkic people who lived in what is now the Caucasus mountains, and around the black sea. But I do believe in the Ashkenazim Genetic material there is the faint remnants of a handful of Khazar males whom went west after the fall of the kingdom and just joined the already existent Ashkenazim. (Nazrael (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

The Thirteenth Tribe
It's a quarter of a century since I read the book, but I thought the point Koestler was making was that it was absurd and ironic to persecute people as a race when they weren't one! I am a socialist who has always thought there was only one race - the human race - and found this a congenial viewpoint. It may also be a peculiarly British viewpoint to note that we seem to be able to think up any number of ways of separating ourselves out into groups and that race is just one of the more tedious and persistent variations. 80.168.173.211 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is only one "race" there is ergo, no race. Humans are a species, not a race. Race is a subdivision of a single species. I think it's a particularly "British" viewpoint to think that the Brits are a nation, and use imperialism to justify that viewpoint within the UK, but there you go. --MacRusgail 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you brought rather more baggage to that than you read in it. As I distantly recall, Koestler thought "nation" was quite a good word for Jews collectively. In my view "nations" are just a chosen identity. Sweet dreams.


 * I do not think that the Jews are a race or a nation, but "religion" doesn't quite cover their position either. You chose to be a "Brit" eh? I think you're rather naive to believe that. You are probably more conditioned than you'd like to admit, like everyone else, especially in how you buy into "Britishness" which is essentially an identity which comes out of an empire. Oh, but you're not British are you? You're a citizen of the world. Guess what? So am I. I'm a citizen of the world and NOT British. :) Good night... --MacRusgail 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No wonder the Celts got their arses kicked by the Romans. Speaking of Celts, where they a nation or a religion? Ah, neither, they were a culture ... like the Jews are today. The Romans were even the same enemy. So what's all the fuss? Jcchat66 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A stupid simplistic view of history. The usual definition of Celts these days, by the way, is neither by religion nor nation, but ties to certain languages. Oh, and by the way, if you actually read history, you would know that the Gauls actually invaded the city of Rome at one point - not to mention that large areas of "Celtic" territory which were never conquered by them, e.g. Ireland. --MacRusgail 09:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was joking, and know full well that neither than lands of the Cruithnach or the Erinach were every conquered by the Romans. Please do not assume that I have no read history, and use such inappropriate words like stupid. I've been studying history for well over fifteen years. My apologies for any offense, but the point was plain enough. The Celts (if that's even a proper name for them) were a culture united by a common language, much like the Hebrews, thus my point. Nation or no nation, religion or not, they existed as a cultural identity. And being British does not come out of an empire, it has a far deeper character than that. If you knew your Celtic history, then you would know of the Britons, and the very root origins of the word from Pritani, thanks to the Greeks.


 * I think the point of Koestler's book was to shed light on the importance of the Jewish cultural influence on the world at large. (We are not talking about races at all.) The Khazars, as a Jewish culture, played a very important and beneficial role to Western development. And for MacRusgail's benefit, the same can be said for Celtic culture that brought us soap, Molmultine laws that led to common law unique to the rest of Europe, large oceangoing vessels from the Veneti for eventaully crossing the Atlantic, and a host of other great achievements. From the Hebrews and those many nations strongly influenced by them, we received mathematics, language, family virtues, record-keeping, mansonry and carpentry, etc. I was under the impression of Koestler's book that he proclaimed these virtues, rather than tried to deminish them. Perhaps he was wrong about German Jews being descendants of the Khazars, but there should be no doubt that some cultural infuence played its part. Jcchat66 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Content moved from article page
The following non-article text was at the top of the article page:
 * The article as it stands is strongly biased. Following are suggestions for a re-write... and a bit of deconstruction. Nowhere is there a discussion of the book's general contents and their merit as history. The author has made the Wikipedia definition into a polemic, rather than a discussion or definition. 

in para 2:
 * (THIS IS AN OPINION. Branding a group "anti-Semitic" because it does not conform to Zionist pedagogy is intellectually indefensible. The term "Anti-semitic" has become the strongest propaganda tool of Zionist idealogues. It's meaning has been prostituted to such a degree it is no longer meaningful. This is not an objective statement).

Moves by --AlisonW 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Khazar theory and this book
This article should be about the book, and direct responses to it, not the Khazar theory in general. A lot of the stuff here, is not related to Koestler's work. --MacRusgail 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Having just finished the book, it's a shame to turn this interesting, well written, excellently researched and thought provoking 250-page work into, for example, nothing more than a book that 'many anti-semites [reference needed]' utilise for their own purposes. Doing so seems myopic at the very least. 201.220.15.66 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Alan


 * It is worth keeping, but moving over to another article. Koestler wasn't a Jew baiter. Some people have accused him of abandoning his Jewish heritage, but he never made it a secret. It's an interesting book, and not anti-Jewish IMHO. I think he was trying to unmask two of the mysteries of history, like a) what happened to the once substantial Khazars, and b) how can we explain such a large Jewish population in Eastern Europe, when its origins are hazy. Koestler saw that there was an overlap between the once Jewish Khazar empire, and the so called Jewish "Pale". --MacRusgail 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bunch of unscientific twaddle that abuses the few sources it uses. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a bit of an uncharitable exaggeration. Koestler was trying to match up two historical mysteries, and there was no DNA testing then, so it's anachronistic to speak of it in the context of this book. It's not the first or last hypothesis to be disproven. --MacRusgail 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, he was a non-scientist, who was speculating, for specific reasons (essentially to remove the "stigma" of antisemitism from Jews"). It was never "excellently researched", and it certainly wasn't scientific. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that there was never meant to be any "science" in the book (DNA testing was decades into the future), it was an historical theory, not a biological one. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is not interesting, or even of cultural value. To drag DNA into it is anachronistic. --MacRusgail 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly was science before DNA research; historians, archaeologists, etc. were scientists too. Koestler, however, was a novelist, and apparently a good writer of fiction. On that scale I'm sure The Thirteenth Tribe measures up well. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder, jayjg, have you even read the book? Strong opinions if you haven't. And as far as someone being an expert in areas in which he has no formal training, isn't that what you are attempting to convince us of about yourself?  LOL (Unsigned commend by user:201.220.15.66)


 * Um, no. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've not even read the bloody thing?! Thanks for the patronising comment about how they had science when Koestler wrote the book, I never would have guessed, thanks. If you'd read the book, you'd realise that Koestler was focussing on history, and Ashkenazi culture. Koestler's work - erroneous as it may be - is hypothetical; it is not "pseudoscience" but an historical theory. The comments about DNA in this article should be succinct; the Khazar theory itself has developed and diverged far beyond The Thirteenth Tribe into a number of different varieties, from mere acknowledgement of some Khazar cultural influence (which is still certainly not outside the bounds of possibility), to highly unpleasant racial bigotry of a kind Koestler himself would not have espoused. But, none of this is actually to do with the book, only the theory it propounded. --MacRusgail 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My "Um, no" was in response to the question "isn't that what you are attempting to convince us of about yourself?". Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a bit better! Anyway, to your knowledge is there a separate article on the Khazar theory, and its debunking? There should be. --MacRusgail 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an article on the Khazars, and it has a section about the theory. I significantly re-wrote it today, to give a fair bit more of its history. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it needs an article separate from this and the Khazars. I did some digging around on the internet. It has been picked up in a big ugly way by a lot of the hard right - not what Koestler intended. --MacRusgail 22:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realise I am crossing paths with the great jaypg of many barnstars, but correct is correct and obstinacy is obstinacy. I have a few 'barnstars' of my own in that I hold a Ph.D. in a field of science, am a tenured professor at a medical school, and have a decent record of scientific publications in peer-reviewed science journals. That may not mean much to you, jaypg, but it should. If you persist in reverting back to unscientific wording and making non-NPOV claims that even the authors of the scientific papers you cite do not make, you are not doing the readers of Wikipedia, nor anyone associated with Wikipedia, a service regardless of your history with Wikipedia. Perhaps it is time you retire.

Now, here is the abstract of one of the articles you cite. Note the authors' use of accepted scientific notation (wording) in the abstract. I've emphasised a few of them for ease:

""Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly [not solely] from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis [not prove] that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest [again, not prove] that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

Please do not persist in attempting to let your own ego ride roughshod over the better interests of Wikipedia and its readers. 201.220.15.66 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Professor Dr. Alan


 * People can claim to be whatever they want on the internet, and have whatever degrees they please, "Professor Dr. Alan". More importantly, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, both of which are policy on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they can Jayjg, but it would help if article writers read some of the material they were writing about. Your beef is more with what has followed on from the book. --MacRusgail 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment above. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that both the Khazar Theory and refutation of the Khazar Theory 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. Biblically descended Jews intermarried with descendants of converts and remained aware of their religion and culture. [i]new commenter[/i]

Needs quotes
Apart from this article's ability to attract headcases - of both persuasions - can I suggest that a few quotes from the book itself be included? The article has a lot of commentary and criticism of the book, but little about the book itself, and what it says.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think the article should describe in more detail the contents of the book, buttressed by quotes from the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand
Does Sand actually discuss this book? If so, we need a page number, if not, it is a WP:SYNTH violation. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, it mention several times Koestler's book (indeed, a lot -- I've personally heard from Koestler via the book of Shlomo Sand). Unfortunately, I've the french book (hence incorrect pagination), but it should not at all be a problem to give pages. Levochik (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If we are removing all references to Sand in this article, as THF has done, that is acceptable. But if Sand remains in the article, the crticism of Sand must remain as well. -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need attacks on Sands in here? He's not some kind of crack-pot, he's put together what he claims is the consensus of Israeli historians outside the "Jewish History" movement. (Finkelstein did something similar, demolitioning the Davidand Solomon myth and the Exodus myth). Sand did this partly because, more than most Israeli academics, he doesn't have a lot to fear from the smears that were bound to flung at him. Sands is far less controversial than, say, Bernard Lewis, and I'm not seeing constant attacks on Lewis calling him an obsessive who aligns his history with political needs. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. Sand is distinct, if not WP:FRINGE, minority, and must be represented as such. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing nothing in the rules that requires us to attack the authors of books, especially not with highly politicised sources such as these two on Koestler: "Abramsky, Chimen. "The Khazar Myth." Jewish Chronicle (April 9, 1976): 19;" and "Maccoby, Hyam. "Koestler's Racism." Midstream 23 (March 1977)".
 * Meanwhile, the biographies of terrorists and ethnic cleansers such as Menachem Begin are whitewashed. Elie Wiesel may be a fine man but is reliably accused of wholesale fabrication and protecting war-criminals if they happened to have been recruited by the CIA - none of which can be added to his article. Tzipi Livni is under indictment for war-crimes, you'd never guess there's a serious case to answer from what we write about her.
 * So let me ask again - why this very biased treatment of Koestler's book, when he's a highly regarded Zionist writer who has perhaps, in just one book, blown a hole in one of the myths of Israel? 86.159.70.117 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for activism. There are plenty of places on the internet for that. -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Synth violations
Recent additions have been classic WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and unsourced personal editorializing to the article again. Can an eye be kept on it so that additions are 1) sourced and 2) the sources directly refer to the book, and not something tangential which would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition to the "Controversy" section that I made does not advance any position. It simply cited an article in the Israel National News http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127483 which states that an archaeological expedition is underway which may have uncovered the remains of the ancient Khazarian city of Itil, its captial, and that it is hoped this expedition will shed light on the possible Khazar origins of Ashkenazi jews.  How is that advancing a position?  It seems neutral to me, and certainly relevant to this article.  For that reason, I am reverting your change back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Being that the article in question mentions nothing about the book "The Thirteenth Tribe", bringing it here is a synth violation. Please review WP:SYNTH and do not restore it here. -- Avi (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:SYNTH. It states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." My edit to the article did not attempt to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources. This article ( http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127483 ) on continuing research into the possibility that Ashkenazi jews trace their origins to Khazaria is relevant to the controversy over The Thirteenth Tribe even though it does not explicity mention this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I get your point. Perhaps a newspaper article, historian, or other admissible source will later make the connection I was trying to make, and at that point it can (and should) be included in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.94.180 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If a verifiable and reliable source can be found directly relating this book and recent research, that would be an appropriate addition. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section violates NPOV
I have to say the "Controversy" section in particular seems biased. There have been many positive reviews of Koestler's book, for example in the Los Angeles Times and in the New York Times. Shouldn't we balance the POV by including some of these more positive reviews? Only mentioning negative critiques violates NPOV. 68.203.94.180 (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid to say this article attracts idiots from both sides of the debate. I agree, there needs to be more positive stuff. It also needs to be pointed out that Koestler himself was not some anti-Jewish racist, even if the far right has jumped on his thesis - both far-right "Aryanism" and far right forms of Zionism.


 * As for the DNA angle, this is important, but again, Koestler was writing at a time when genetics was much more primitive. This could be dealt with more briefly, and with links.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for references in French historians that someone (human?) erases again and again when reloading the older version
Just to show that Koestler's thesis is not so new and original. This quotation is mentioned in the French version of Wikipedia (article "Controverse Ashkenazes-Khazars"): "Les conversions massives à l'époque grecque et romaine enlèvent au judaïsme toute signification ethnologique, et coupent tout lien physique (mais non pas spirituel) avec la Palestine […] La plupart des Juifs de Gaule ou d'Italie, sont le produit de ces conversions. Quant aux Juifs du bassin du Danube, ou du Sud de la Russie, ils descendent sans doute des Khazars. Ces régions contiennent de nombreuses populations juives qui probablement n'ont rien à voir, du point de vue ethnologique, avec les Juifs d'origine." Of course, Renan can be characterized as racist (and even anti-Semitic in his peculiar "cultural but non biologic" kind of racism). But the "Khazar thesis" permeates in many serious French historians and Ferro and Bloch themselves are Jews. Bloch was even an anti-Nazi Résistance martyr. Yours, KTA 193.135.132.138 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One by one (and this makes THE THIRTEENTH HEADING for me)
I am ONLY rewriting this three items: -Reference to Renan, Bloch and Ferro. -Shlomo instead of Sholomo and brackets to find the guy in Wikipedia. -The book doesn't fit so easily into Pseudohistory category. Sorry, I think it has grown more serious that Atlantis and UFO theories. Koestler was strange but not nuts ... and some serious historians supported and support this theory. Now let's see how many hours it takes to the sick trolls flying around this article to erase the three changes as if nobody was watching. Yours, KTA 153.109.42.97 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion completely to ref. of Shlomo Sand?
Can we have a discussion regarding the inclusion or not of a reference to Prof. Shlomo Sand in this article. This is concerning the editing war where Briangotts has twice deleted my reference to Sand and on the second occasion gone further and deleted ALL reference to Sand by deleting a previous entry (not by me) concerning his part in the controversy. It seems to me that Prof. Sand is clearly a participant in the controversy surrounding Koestler's thesis and therefore to delete ALL REFERENCE TO HIM can only allow Wiki readers to come away with only a partial understanding of the scope of Koestler' work, its influence, and the controversy it has contributed to. I suggest that for the benefits of balance it is important to know Koestler is not alone in his thesis. And Prof Sand does refer to Koestler's work in his own book. So it seems highly relevant to this article that Sand and his work should be referenced in some way. To delete all reference to Sand I am afraid will leave a wiki article that appears impartial and baised to those with any knowledge of the issue, and will leave a false and partial impression to readers who know little of the subject matter. Also I see from the discussion history that inclusion of Sands has previously been discussed. As has the apparent bias of this article and the section on 'controversy' in particular. So I see I am not alone in my view. Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

addition in answer to Avraham's reason for the recent edit. I don't recognise the fact that Prof. Sand having his own wiki article has relevance to the appropriateness or not of a reference to him in this article. Can you explain what you mean further please? I understood that the whole concept of the web and wikipedia in particular was its interelatedness and how every article leads to further lines of enquiry via live links. Sand and his book DO support Koestler's thesis and his book. So a reference to Sand adds to an understanding of Koestler's book and its influence. Therefore why delete ALL mention of Sand? I don't understand the logic. Also I don't recognise the validity of the argument that Prof. Sand needs to be a geneticist before he can to point to the controversy regarding the conclusion of current genetic research and its impact on Koestler's thesis. Can somebody explain that further. We have the quote from geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan which supports the quote from Sand. So there IS a controversy and therefore Sand's inclusion and appropriate quote under the heading 'Controversy' seems entirely appropriate. Can somebody who objects please do me the courtesy of explaining their contrary viewpoint BEFORE they just delete this addition to the article for the fourth time. Otherwise without an adequate explanation or discussion it does appear that the deletion is NOT because the addition flaunts any wikipedia rules but because the deleted content offends the beliefs of the editors who are deleting it. Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a concept called WP:UNDUE which is a subset of WP:NPOV. Sand is an author, not someone qualified to discuss Koestler. The fact that there is some relation, and that this is a wiki which should allow for hyperlinking, is already handled by both being in Category:Khazar studies. However, giving space in this article to one person's opinion, one that is both controversial and the minority, is a violation of UNDUE. Bringing in the entire Sand discussion for balance would overwhelm the article as well. A possibility to discuss here is whether or not the Sand controversy should be listed as a "See also" wikilink with no mention in the text. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks first of all for your response. I have now amended my addition in order to try and reach a compromise. Though can I ask you to address my 'discussion' remarks specifically. Again, your undoing of my addition left an article where ALL mention of Sand and his book has been deleted totally. Although I understand it can be argued he represents a minority view regarding Jewish history, still I feel it is highly relevant to point out that this article is NOT about Jewish history in general. It is of course about a specific book. Prof. Sand DOES support THE view of that book – this wiki article's subject matter (which itself promotes a minority viewpoint) – and therefore his inclusion seems highly relevant to this particular wiki article.

Secondly it is not correct to refer to Sand as merely an author. He is a Professor of European History, so is a qualified academic.

Thirdly this section ('Controversy') had a list ONLY of detractors, some of whom were non-academics, including unspecified "commentators" and journalists who venture only unsubstantiated opinion. Can I ask you to clarify why you will not allow the inclusion of a high profile and respectable Jewish Israeli historian to be added as a balance to all the negative opinion about Koestler's book?

Regarding Sand not being "qualified to discuss Koestler": the article is NOT about Koestler but about his book 'The thirteenth tribe'. So I don't see the relevance of that complaint. The quote you have deleted is discussing the thesis which is the basis of the book which this article is supposed to be about. So again it seems highly relevant.

I followed the link and read up on WP:NPOV. It states there: "Achieving neutrality. As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Therefore don't you need to not only first discuss convincingly why the reference to Sand, his 'bestseller' book and his quote which you have deleted is in your opinion either i.) biased, ii.) an irrelevant minority view concerning the subject matter (controversy surrounding 'the 13th tribe'), iii.) inaccurate, or iv. merely an opinion, but also avoid just deleting.

Most importantly, the recent genetic research is quite crucial to the accuracy or not of 'The thirtheenth Tribe's' thesis'. Geneticist Noah Rosenberg AND the 2005 study by Nebel support Sand's quote, so it seems highly relevant. Are you contesting whether the Sand quote is accurate?

Finally, that you and Briangotts between you have now deleted completely ALL reference to Sand and his work four times over four days without discussion, yet allowed opinions of unspecified commentators and journalists to remain does seem extremely inconsistent. Can you explain why you think a detracting journalist's opinion is more relevant than a supporting academic's statement of fact?Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In your most recent edit, you added Sand and deleted Goldstein without mentioning it in the edit summary. Was the deletion accidental or purposeful? -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Intentional, for the reasons given above. Is that alright? We already have three detractors with quotes, all of whom are members of the subject of the book (Ashkenazim) so perhaps not completely impartial. Plus there remains the reference to unspecified 'commentators' opinions which also seems questionable (verifiable?). And following the criteria of yourself and Brian on persons included needing to be qualified to venture an opinion, it seemed the quotes of mere opinions from two non-qualified journalists (also ashkenazim) saying in effect "I think the book is rubbish" without giving sound and researched reasons for thinking so, were unnecessary and infringed wiki policy WP:NPOV.

As has previously been suggested here, the 'controversy' section appears to be neither balanced or unbiased. Thus the importance of at least one reference to a positive view of Koestler's work to achieve more balance and neutrality. E.g. the academically researched and (in some quarters) well-received book by Prof. Sand which supports Koestler's thesis in this book 'The 13th Tribe', WP:IRS I.e. "making sure that all... significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered"Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mystichumwipe, among other issues raised above, I'm concerned that the material you're adding doesn't actually seem to directly discuss the book The Thirteenth Tribe, which is the subject of this article. Can you quote where it mentions The Thirteenth Tribe? If it doesn't mention it, then adding it would be WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:SYNTH; even if true, still a violation. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayig (and Avi). Erm... well, I don't know how familiar you are with the contents of Sand's book but in many, many places there he discusses 'the thirteenth tribe' and it's thesis is the whole basis of Sand's book. I can get a direct quote "mentioning it" to add if you wish. Plus the section in question here is the 'controversy' surrounding Koestler's book. So I still don't quite understand your concern regarding "relevance" and WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH. A point I have previously explained, yet without any response so far) :-(

Also, may I ask you to explain why this is not an issue in other areas in the article? E.g.1. if this is an issue, why Bernard Lewis's quote is allowed to stand as he also does not "directly discuss the book" but only talks about the "theory" behind it. A "theory" which Sand and Koesteler are only recent publishers of, so discussion of the thory behind it can be said to also not be a "direct" discussion of "the book".

E.g. 2 how is this directly discussing the book "Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory has been adopted by anti-Zionists[3] and anti-Semites;[4] such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor ..." etc.

Again its not the book directly being discussed there, but the "Khazar theory".

I could give further example but I hope you get my point.

And Avi, I would welcome your reply when you have time, to my point-by-point reply to your previous comment to me, about the inclusion of journalist's and unspecified commentators opinions, etc., etc. In the absence of that I am regretably starting to feel there are very serious impartiality issues regarding the content and editing of this article.Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that doesn't specifically mention the book itself should be removed, whether positive or negative. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But the book is a reworking of other OLDER authors/historians work regarding the history of the Khazars, plus an exploration and promulgation of a previously formed theory that they are the ancestral origin of all Ashkenazi Jews. So HOW do you suggest we decide what is a "direct reference" to this book and what is an 'indirect reference' to these older theories and histories? Where is the dividing line?

As it stands, previous objections on the grounds you now give here have only been applied regarding the inclusion of positive reactions to the book. So we previously had a very non-neutral 'anti' wiki article on the book. And now what you propose would leave a vastly reduced article which informs very little. (Which I imagine many people against the book and its thesis would be very happy about and I do start to wonder if that is the intent here).

Taking out "anything" that could possibly be regarded as "doesn't specifically mention the book" will leave us, as it is now, a very greatly reduced and not very useful article. And I don't see how anyone could objectively apply such a criteria. The older theories and histories and this books reworking of them (plus the newer one and its reworking of this book) DO fit your previous criteria of "directly discuss[ing] the book". Those older versions and the differences between them could be a subject heading. That would be an improvement. But that also wouldn't pass your latest requirement ("specifically mention the book") That's not wiki policy that everything in an article has to mention the subject matter, is it? That strikes me as unworkable.

I would like to expand the article and make it more informative. The problem today I see as only its lack of neutrality. Can you have a look and give me your opinion on my suggestions below for improvements?

Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that should be in this article is material from reliable secondary sources that refers directly to the book, or to Koestler's theories as expressed in the book. Nothing else matters; please click on the links I've provided in the previous sentence, and carefully read the policies and guidelines outlined in them. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I quite understand your insistence on the implementation of wiki policy and the "nothing else matters" statement. No problem with that. I did "carefully read the policies and guidelines" BEFORE writing the above. So an an answer directing me back to the guidelines doesn't help clarify my question. You wrote something that I couldn't see fits under WP:NOR guidelines. You wrote: "Can you quote where it mentions The Thirteenth Tribe? If it doesn't mention it, then adding it would be WP:NOR."

So 1.) can you show me where under the guidelines it states a "mention" of the subject matter is required? If you cannot, I request you please inform me that your previous guidance was incorrectly worded ( I'm new here:-).

And then there remains the unclear issue of 2.) what I understood as your and Avi's insistence that we must make a dividing line between including a discussion of the book and a discussion of the previous histories and Khazar theory. If there has to be a clear disticntion made (which I don't see is necesarry in the case of 'the 13th tribe') then I suggest that ultimately this must come down to a personal decision. I am suggesting to you that the previous and continuous subjective decision-making regarding this issue has not been - and continues not to be - applied consistently or neutrally and this has resulted in an unbalanced and impartial (NOT neutral) article (as I have detailed in the two next discussion headings, under). Sorry to be a pain but please can I again ask you to adress these two points.Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to use material, you must ensure that it is directly related to the topic of the article. If you want to use Sand, then you must at least use the material where he directly discusses Koestler or The Thirteenth Tribe. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

suggestions for improvements and amendments
I've now been doing some re-reading of this article and its sources and I have a few suggestions for changes I'd like to make to achieve more accuracy, impartiality, neutrality and verifiability.

I've refrained from just going ahead and making these additions/alterations to the article for fear of stepping on any toes, and to avoid any future edit wars. I have numbered the suggestions so anyone who wants to respond can be specific with any feedback.

1. Under "References" we have [1.^Koestler, p. 223]. But after a search I couldn't find any such book. If this can NOT be sourced I suggest deleting the statement and the heading "Intent of the book" at the beginning of the article (the sentence connected to the ref.) due to lack of verifiability WP:V & WP:NOCITE

2. Next we have the alleged Koestler quote "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago… is irrelevant to modern Israel." But the source given for that does not itself provide any source for the quote from Koestler. WP:V again? Even assuming this does accurately reflect Koestler's view, the question remains how does this quote - which is not from the book under discussion - have any direct relevance to this article? So I would like to remove this. WP:NPOV

3. Then we have the statement: In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century." But it is not clear who is speaking or making this statement. Again WP:V and WP:SOURCES. I would like to remove this.

4. Then we have the quote: "Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory has been adopted by ..." etc., up to "...of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists." This does not refer to the book but only the 'Khazar theory'. I'm ok with that to a degree, as it discusses influence of the book. I suggest only a small rewrite. But of more concern is that it also points unspecifically to vague anti-zionists and anti-semites "adopting" the book as if they are some clear, easily-recognised, organised, self-confessed 'groups' like the Nazi party or something. The inclusion here gives the implication that anyone who agrees with the "Khazar theory" or is open to Koestler's ideas are adopting anti-zionist and anti-semitic ideas. So violations of WP:SYNTH? and WP:NPOV? Thus, if this sentence is to be included I feel it needs to be re-written to be more neutral and also more directly related to Koestler's book. Perhaps something like: "Nevertheless, in the Arab world the theory espoused in Koestler's book has been adopted by persons who argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists"

5. I feel this needs rewriting: "Commentators have also claimed that Koestler mischaracterized the sources he cited, particularly D.M. Dunlop's History of the Jewish Khazars (1954)." It does not appear to be supported by the reference provided. There is no mention there of "mischaracterized" that I could find. Instead it says "Koestler's sources and ...the historians are much more tentative". Also its not "commentators" (plural) but the journalist Neil McInnes writing that. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_1999_Fall/ai_56750595/pg_6/?tag=content;col1

6. Koestler's thesis reliance on works of earlier historians I would like to see as separate heading and expanded. I don't see how that fits under the heading 'controversy' which is hwere it is today. I'm working on a list of works of earlier historians myself now. I would like to add it after sometime if no-one comes with any objection to this suggestion.

7. Finally a general comment: there are parts of the article as it stands where negative assessments of the book come from commentators who appear to identify themselves with the subject matter of the book's thesis. Yet that conflict of interest and any resulting bias or judgement impairment is not referenced or alluded to. I would like to see that alluded to in someway, by way of small re-writing--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to your points in order:
 * If it can't be sourced, it should be deleted.
 * The source in question perfectly complies with WP:V; it is a reliable secondary source, specifically discussing Koestler's thesis as outlined in The Thirteenth Tribe. It should not be removed, it's one of the few policy-compliant sentences in the whole article.
 * The source is clearly provided, Michael Barkun, Religion and the racist right: the origins of the Christian Identity movement, pp. 144-145. It is a reliable secondary source, specifically discussing Koestler's thesis as outlined in The Thirteenth Tribe. It should not be removed, as it's also one of the few policy-compliant sentences in the whole article.
 * The sources do not refer directly to the book or Koestler's theory as expressed in it. Lewis and Fein should be removed. The next source, however, does directly (if briefly) discuss Koestler's theories as expounded in the book.
 * This should be re-written to more closely match the source.
 * Feel free to expand, but first find the reliable secondary sources that discuss it.
 * Accusing reliable secondary sources of bias, or trying to discredit them because of they allegedly "identify themselves with the subject matter of the book's thesis" is the worst combination of poisoning the well and original research. Wikipedia does not allow this.
 * And finally, if you do remove any material, please make sure you remove all the material you have also added that is not directly about the book, or Koestler's thesis as outlined in the book. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

- - - -

2.) Can you explain or demonstrate how this quote: "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago… is irrelevant to modern Israel." refers directly to the book, or to Koestler's theories as expressed in the book? To my knowledge his book DOES NOT cover nor address this.

3.) Can you explain or demonstrate how  this quote: In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century." refers directly to the book, or to Koestler's theories as expressed in the book? To my knowledge his book DOES NOT cover nor address this.

4.) Discrediting anyone is your wording, not mine (strawman). And I'm not suggesting original research (another strawman argument). I'm merely trying to produce a more balanced and neutrral article. So please can you explain how it is that the current status of the article has sources saying people who "adopt" the book and its theories are anti-semites and anti-zionists and that is somehow not poisoning the well in your opinion? Clearly Prof. Sand and Koestler do not fit that category. And please explain to me how a suggestion for a rewriting to include sources that show protagonists/critics of the book are pro-israeli, pro-zionist and ashkneazi that IS somehow poisoning the well? It appears as yet another example of a double standard in administration from you Jay. It appears to demonstrate what your own allegiances and viewpoints probably are and if that guess of mine is correct it demonstrates non-neutral administration. Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you've done exactly the opposite what I've suggested, so I've had to clean up this mess. Responding to your points
 * 2) On the referenced page, 144, Barkun starts by stating "The Khazar theory received reinforcement from an unexpected quarter with the publication in 1976 of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe." It then goes on to discuss the book, the theory as espoused in it, and the uses made of it. In addition, the quote itself, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago…is irrelevant to modern Israel" is a direct quote from The Thirteenth Tribe!!. It is fairly amazing that you could claim that his book "DOES NOT cover nor address this". Your removal of this material was at best completely inappropriate; do not remove it again.
 * 3) See sentence above. On these pages of his book, Barkun directly discusses Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, and his theories in them.
 * 4) I don't understand your point, and in any event Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Please discuss your edits in the future, rather than edit-warring in non-policy-compliant material, and editing out policy-compliant material. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this mystifying. have repeatedly sought discussion. I noticed you allowed Avi to delete the section showing the contents of the book and my quote showing Koestler's intent with the book. He did that without any discussion. I reintroduced just the quote and I see you have allowed it to stand. That was an 'undiscussed' deletion. (Deletion of the only quote from Koestler himself discussing the book). I'm just trying to understand how this works. Can you explain to me why you allowed that?--Mysticbumwipe (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're referring to here, and am skeptical that it is relevant. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But Jay, I did NOT "claim his book DOES NOT cover nor address this" I asked you to show me and stated clearly it was only "To my knowledge his book DOES NOT cover nor address this." I am quite aware that my own knowledge is limited ;-). Can you give a page reference? Have you read the book? Also, I have now added some positive quotes, with references, and reintroduced Sand again to the article. I hope you will be consistent and allow reference to him to remain and the positive appraisals to stand (i.e to quote your goodself: "do not remove it again";-). Mysticbumwipe (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you removed the material despite not knowing if it was in there and admitting your knowledge is limited, and despite the fact that it was reliably sourced? Please don't do that again. And, in fact, you didn't just write To my knowledge, you wrote below nor do they "refer directly to ...Koestler's views as expressed in the book". As for knowing where it is in the book, yes I do, but that's not relevant. We have a reliable secondary source, that's all we need. Regarding your recent edits, I've cleaned them up again. In the future please ensure that you
 * use reliable sources (see WP:V/WP:RS);
 * surround text with quotation marks when you copy it verbatim from a source (see WP:PLAGIARISM);
 * don't devote huge amounts of space to individual commentators; one paragraph devoted to Sand's views is plenty (see WP:UNDUE);
 * focus on the book itself, rather than promoting conspiracist narratives about Koestler being suppressed or censored (see WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE); and
 * don't insert your own views and opinions (see WP:NOR).
 * Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Impartiality of the administrator?
"Its a bunch of unscientific twaddle that abuses the few sources it uses." Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayg, I have now seen that the above statement was written by you about the book 'The Thirteenth Tribe' under a previous discussion. :-o

This does confirm what I previously had only guessed at regarding your approach to this wiki article.

I would like to ask you if you think that you can justly and impartially apply wiki policy to this subject matter, if you hold the above view which is neither neutral nor impartial.

I now believe that you cannot and wonder what you advise?

--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that 3½ years ago. What of it? This article still must comply with WP:NOR, which means all sources must refer directly to the book or Koestler's views as expressed in the book. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

General answer: I don't mean to make this a personal attack, I'm just suggesting that if you hold such a very strong and negative view of the subject matter then that might impair your judgement and allow for impartial application of wiki policy. That's human nauture. I.e. the "what of it" is concerning your own application of NEUTRALITY, one of the three pillars of wikipedia.

Specifics: You have repeatedly allowed removal/undos of additions that could be interpreted as 'pro' the book and given reasons of wiki policy to justify that. That's all fine and dandy. But at the same time you have allowed many other things to stand which are very 'anti' the book which contravene those exact same rules. How do you explain that if it is not an example of unjust and impartial administration?

Basically you appear to me to have allowed this article to be biased and NOT neutral for a long period of time and you have not allowed, and appear to me to have actively - though perhaps subconsciously - worked against this bias being amended recently. Now, when the inconsistent application of these rules is pointed out you, you agree to ALL infringemnets of wiki policy being removed, but you haven't acknowledged that there HAS BEEN an inconsistency previously. AND you are STILL trying to keep in critical parts of the article which STILL transgress your own policy application. Points 2 and 3 DO NOT "mention" or "discuss directly" the book WP:NOR, nor do they "refer directly to ...Koestler's views as expressed in the book". Yet you maintain they are two "the few policy-compliant sentences in the whole article." How do you explain this persistent inconsistent application of your own recent policy application if its is not an example of unconscious or willful bias and lack of neutrality?

Also my question to you remains unanswered: "do you think that you can justly and impartially apply wiki policy to this subject matter, if you hold the above view which is neither neutral nor impartial. I now believe that you cannot and wonder what you advise?"Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Points 2 and 3 above come from a book that, in fact, directly discusses the Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, and his thesis. Point 2 also, in fact, contains a direct quote from The Thirteenth Tribe, so it is astonishing that you would claim it does not "refer directly to ...Koestler's views as expressed in the book". My statements and edits all fully comply with policy. You have consistently rejected the views and advice of experienced editors and administrators here. Please stop doing so, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Influence in the Arab World
In the section on the book's influence, I don't see the connection between the sentence on the the book's influence in the Arab World and the statement about "the fever swamps of the white nationalist movement". Are you saying these two attitudes are motivated by the same sentiment? The second one is racist; the first is purely political. Imagine some famous writer posits the theory in a highly popular book that modern Palestinians, for example, are not descended from ancient Palestinians. That, I think, would be very popular in Israel. It has nothing to do with racism. It's anti-Zionist, for sure, but not anti-Jewish. So I find the placement of these two statements together rather disingenuous. They should be separated, or at least their different premises made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.57.227 (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything is being implied by having two sentences on essentially the same subject in one paragraph. As for motivations, we really can't say what they are; perhaps political, perhaps race-related, perhaps both, perhaps other. People are complex, and state things for many reasons. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-organized the material so it's not in the same paragraph. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reviews of the book were mixed, and biographers of Koestler panned it"
Mystichumwipe has put a citation required tag on the following sentence in the lede: "Reviews of the book were mixed, and biographers of Koestler panned it" Keeping in mind that this material is fully cited in the body of the article, can Mystichumwipe explain what he thinks needs be cited? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My concerns are with balance, accuracy and allowing for an impartial understanding. Did ALL Koestler biographers "pan" the book? I myself am not aware of that. Did more than one "pan" it? Again I don't think that is shown in this article.
 * And anyway, what does "panned it" mean?
 * It implies to me that they thought it had no merit at all.
 * A dictionary definition is "Panned: Severe criticism, especially a negative review". Well, where in the article is "severe" criticism cited? And who decides what is "severe".
 * The part of the sentence: "...and biographers of Koestler panned it" does not appear to be supported by any evidence but is an expression of a personal opinion, your opinion. I asked for a citation as without one I think this stands as a WP:ORIGINAL violation. Therefore I am just suggesting that if we cannot cite a source for "biographers panned it" then I think it should be deleted. Its misleading (all biographers?), and vague (which biographers specifically?) and subjective (what is the definition of panned) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here: David Cesarani states it makes "selective use of facts for a grossly polemical end" and is "risible as scholarship". Michael Scammell writes that Koestler's theory "was almost entirely hypothetical and based on the slenderest of circumstantial evidence" and takes the book as evidence that Koestler's brain "was starting to fail him". If anything "panned" is too mild a world.
 * We know what these Koestler biographers said about the book. Do you have any examples of other Koestler biographers saying other things about it? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thats two biographers opinions. That is not in contention. There are at present nine biographers of Koestler, as far as I am aware. Please may I bring your attention back to my points regarding YOUR sentence and its accuracy, subjectivity and lack of citation. I.e. that which we appear to disagree on. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Material in the lede does not need to be cited, so long as it is cited in the body of the article. This material is cited in the body of the article.
 * There are no issues with the sentence's accuracy or subjectivity, as pointed out. The claim that the critics did not pan the book has been shown to be false; in fact, they were even more negative. Rather than "mixed", most reviews of the book (particularly academic) were also actually quite negative. If anything, the sentence whitewashes the negative views of the book. I've added the material about academic critiques now; are you arguing the sentence should be even more negative?
 * I've specifically named the biographers now. If you have any contrary views from other biographers of Koestler, please bring them forward. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Modern genetic research does not support Koestler's theories"
Mystichumwipe has removed the following sentence from the lede: "Modern genetic research does not support Koestler's theories" with the edit summary DNA studies on the Khazar hypothesis do not "entirely eliminate it either." The Khazar article itself lists at least a half dozen genetic studies that do not support Koestler's theory. This article also lists genetic studies that do not support Koestler's theory. Even the one, outlying geneticist Noah Rosenberg – who says the studies "do not entirely eliminate" Koestler's theory – states that they "do not appear to support" his theory. There are no genetic studies that support Koestler's theory, and no geneticists who say they do; in fact, all the sources we have agree that the studies do not support Koeslter's theory. Exactly one geneticist waffles a tiny bit. Keeping in mind WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, can Mystichumwipe explain why he would possibly remove that true statement that is supported by all sources and contradicted by none? And in your response, Mystichumwipe, please do not bring up Rosenberg; instead, read the previous paragraph carefully, because Rosenberg also says the studies do not support Koestler's theory. And no, we're not adding Rosenberg's minor waffling to the lede either; the lede summarizes the main points of the article, and does not give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:REDFLAG claims, and he is the only geneticist that says anything at all like this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One geneticist has been cited. That does not equate with him being the only one who holds that view. Only that at present he is the only one who has been cited. Shlomo Sand also referenced the same information which holds to this view as expressed by Rosenberg but you deleted that because of him not being a geneticist.
 * You wrote "...read the previous paragraph carefully, because Rosenberg also says the studies do not support Koestler's theory. But that is not correct. As you correctly stated earlier, he has stated that DNA studies "do not appear to support" the Khazar hypothesis. Whereas in the disputed sentence in the lede you have written that lack of "support" as a definitive and absolute statement of fact. It is not. I presume you are not a geneticist, and as personal opinion counts as NOR infringement, that sentence I think is not helpful to an ubiased and accurate understanding of the issue.
 * The facts remain that a geneticist and an expert has written that recent DNA studies only "appear" to support the Khazar hypothesis. He HAS written they do not "entirely eliminate [the Khazar hypothesis] either."
 * Whether you or I like that statement of scientific fact or not, there it is. It has not yet been conclusiveley proven either way. The article should represent that.
 * Er... does that answer your question?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do not suggest nor want "adding Rosenberg's [statement]...to the lede". I am only suggesting deleting information from the intro if it can be shown to inaccurate and misleading.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the sources again. Many genetic studies are mentioned, and none of them support Koestler's theories. Even in the one WP:REDFLAG view from Rosenberg on one study he says "this is clearly showing a genetic common ancestry of all Jewish populations" and that it "does not appear to support" Koestler's theory. What I have stated about Rosenberg is correct. What you have stated is incorrect. You must review WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Find me a genetic study or a geneticist who actually states that genetic studies support the Khazar theory, and we'll have something to discuss. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be reasonable. You are now engaging in an edit war, without any compromise. Rosenberg is in the linked article with the other expert opinions. So not a redflag. He actually praises the reserach. So I do not see why I need to find a "...genetic study or a geneticist". We already have an expert source that says the results are inconclusive. The whole field of genetic data for ethnicity is inconclusive and open to interpretation. Read up on it if you doubt me. You will see the sources use guarded language like "appears to show", etc. So even if you find an expert source that says they are definitely conclusive, you then have only demonstrated two convergent expert opinions. I do not think it is for us, in an encylcopedia, to choose only the one that fits with our own cherished belief systems and censor the one that doesn't fit. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't "engaged in an edit war" with you at all. A different editor reverted you. Please make accurate Talk: page statements.
 * Rosenberg agrees with the other geneticists that the results of the studies do not support Koestler's thesis, as already shown.
 * We do not have any "expert source that says the results are inconclusive". Please make accurate Talk: page statements.
 * No genetic studies are "definitively conclusive"; however, none of the ones on Jews support Koestler's thesis.
 * Please review WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Koestler's intent
Mystichumwipe added the following to the article: "Koestler stated that part of his intent in writing the book was to defuse anti-Semitism by undermining the identification of European Jews with the Jews of the Bible, rendering anti-Semitic epithets such as 'Christ killer' inapplicable." I've moved it to here because, a) I looked through the book, but couldn't find this, and b) shouldn't we be quoting reliable secondary sources on Koestler's intent, rather than a primary (and possibly self-serving) source? I've replaced it instead with a similar statement taken from a reliable secondary source. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you talk about books you haven't read ? And about books you dislike in an objective way? / Censorship
Hallo again. First, I don't like some dark sides of Koestler: his belief in parapsichology nonsenses and the selfish way in which he pulled his wife to suicide with him.

Second, I hate Nazis and anti-semitism. Really.

Third, in my humble opinion, the book itself is weak as historical prose as we understand it nowadays. It seemed intended as popular historical narrative that merges a great number of previous sources.

Fourth, I do understand that a minority of (American) Jews of Ashkenazi descent find the thesis of this book really disturbing for their self-image. As long as they stick to the idea of "Judaism as race", someone (a secularized Ashkenazi Jew) that speaks to them of "Judaism as religion" seems obnoxious and dangerous.

Fifth, some Wikipedia contributors are more obsessed than others to fix their personal points of view. They go back to the articles again and again and they can wait for months until they think "Everybody forgot" and "Nobody is watching".

But If you think you can conceal "unpleasing thinking" in Internet you are wrong. Don't forget the Streisand effect that makes unrelevant information look bigger than it is when you try to supress it. This article is continuously being erased and rewritten again by TROLLS (some of them with Wikipedian stars and pedigree) that

- hide former, valuable contents or

- link it to conspiracy theories in an attempt to classify it as irrelevant or

- include references to negative criticism from the first line of the article and erase positive or even neutral references.

Now, before erasing this, please read again my first, second and third comments. And try to judge yourself sometimes. It seems impossible to get a normal, clean version for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.39.227.10 (talk • contribs)
 * Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Koestler was an Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew
Mystichumwipe added the following to the article: "Arthur Koestler himself was a Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew by ancestry." I've moved it to here because it had no source, and I couldn't see how it was relevant to the book The Thirteenth Tribe. Keeping WP:NOR in mind, does anyone have a source for this statement that ties it directly to the work? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to source something that is beyond contention.
 * WP:FACTS
 * Do you dispute the fact that Arthur Koestler himself was a Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew by ancestry?


 * If not, do you think this fact an insignificant one?


 * I think, in light of references to an anti-semitic aspect/use of the book, that this is an important and relevant fact and helps the reader to be better informed if it is included.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FACTS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. I've read sources that say different things about Koestler's ancestry. More importantly, I don't see how it's revelant to this article. This article is about a book, it's not Koestler's biography. If you think that material is relevant to this article, then please find a reliable source that ties the two together. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained why I think it is relevant to the book.Please do me the courtesy of explaining why you think it is ireleveant and why you are starting an editwar.
 * Koestler thought he was Ashkenazi jewish. I was under the impression that all credible biographers concur. There exist sources that think man hasn't landed on the moon. Just as we don't need to consider them, can you give reasons why we should consider these sources you have alluded to? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it's really relevant, you need to find a reliable source that ties Koestler's ethnicity to the topic of this article (The Thirteenth Tribe) and the contents of the book, per WP:NOR. If no reliable sources have done so, then we can't either. This has been explained already, several times. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources
Mystichumwipe, in one of your edits you linked to an archived version of The Thirteenth Tribe, apparently from www.SolarGeneral.com. To begin with, although the copy states it is a "Review of the Thirteenth Tribe", it is quite obviously just a copy of it, and therefore likely in violation of copyright. Second, it's not a reliable copy - for example, it consistently calls the book at the top of each page "The Thirtheenth Tribe", and is clearly missing entire pages (see, for example, Appendix IV). Thirdly, Solar General is obviously the personal website of a white supremacist antisemite, so it can't be trusted for anything. Please don't link to this source again, even if it's held in an archive site. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There already was a link, as far as I recall either here or on the wiki Koestler biography page which I may have cited. I don't remember. I do not know anything of this site that you refer to: [www.SolarGeneral.com] I do think it useful to have a link to an online version of the book. Or what do you suggest for citations regarding content from the book itself?
 * Here is another link to an online version claiming to be free:
 * http://iamthewitness.com/books/Arthur.Koestler/The.13th.Tribe.htm
 * and here's another:
 * http://www.fantompowa.info/koestlerindex.htm
 * Are these also in violation of copyright law? I don't know, I'm genuinely asking.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first website is the usual antisemitic conspiracy theories in the guise of anti-Zionism. It also just some guy's website - it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. The second is also a conspiracist site that gives no indication regarding its ownership or editorial oversight. It also fails WP:RS. Regarding copyright, I see no reason to think the copyright on this book has lapsed, and no reason to risk violating copyright policy just so one can link to it. I don't see any reputable websites providing downloads of it. And please don't modify my comments again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * :-o Why so consistently agressive and unpleasant? Its just a book. Is no-one else allowed an opinion on it if it doesn't co-incide with your own very negative opinion of the book?-Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement is unrelated to mine. Comment on content, not on the contributor, per policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My statement was related to conduct and etiquette, and thus in line with "policy".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES - article Talk: pages are for discussing article content, not "conduct and etiquette". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An appeal to an adherence of wiki policy regarding behaviour or conduct /etiquette when discussing content does NOT equate with personal attacks against the personality of an editor. But I'm sure you know this, otherwise you have just been guilty of the same... ;-)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate material and false statements moved to Talk: for discussion
I've moved this material recently inserted by Mystichumwipe to the Talk: page for discussion: "Other recent genetic analysis by Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, in which various Jewish populations were studied using genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers and haplogroups on the X and Y chromosomes and mtDNA, found that 'according to the autosomal polymorphisms, the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin:' and that Jews of recent Eastern European ancestry - by far the largest component of the world's Ashkenazi population, which itself is 80% of the world's Jews - 'are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations'. The study concludes that:" ": 'The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome.'" The issues with this insertion are myriad:
 * 1) The source doesn't mention the subject of this article, the book The Thirteenth Tribe. In fact, it doesn't even mention its author, Koestler, or his theory. In fact, it doesn't even mention Khazars, which was what Koestler's theory/book was all about. As such, it's obvious WP:NOR. We've been over this many times here already, so I'm astonished we'd have to review this very basic policy again.
 * 2) Even worse, the source was used to make the claim "recent modern genetic research supports Koestler's theories." Unfortunately, this is utterly false. No recent modern genetic research supports Koestler's theories, including this study. Koestler claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from 9th century Asian/Turkic converts to Judaism, and then moved westward into Ukraine, Germany, etc. The authors of this particular study claim that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of 1st century BC and AD Roman converts to Judaism who "came to Germany and France from Italy". Misrepresenting sources this way is quite serious.
 * 3) Finally, even if it belonged here (which it obviously does not), this is just one study, and it contradicts other recent studies - this one, for example, that says all Jews are related to one another, or this study, that "support[s] the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazim population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans" or this recent study that says "The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of [Turkish, Greek, Syrian and Ashkenazi] Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry." In general, this was a very poor edit, and, again, rather astonishing given the lengthy discussions we've had here previously about policy. Mystichumwipe, can you provide any explanation? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed by this wikipedia page, and amazed that this counter-evidence here was "moved to the Talk page". So, editors of this wikipedia article are filtering out the genetic research that may contradict their claim to have "falsified" Koestler's hypothesis. What I see here are would-be falsifiers who do not allow their own claims to be falsifiable, with the use of "file-drawer" strategies. This is a pity, as is, more generally, a pity the typical obsession with 'proving' any racial exceptionality and denying population mixes across history. At a more general level: Genetic research shows more diversity among so-called ethnic or racial groups than between them. The abuse of genetic research for racial claims is disgusting. --A visitor by the name of Kagan;-) 178.11.39.245 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:TALK. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning the origins of Italian Jews, in his book (the 13th tribe), Koestler wrote:
 * "Italy was not only quasi-saturated with Jews since Roman times, but, like Khazaria, also received its share of immigrants from Byzantium. So here we might have a trickle of "genuine" Jews of Semitic origin into Eastern Europe; yet it could not have been more than a trickle, for there is no trace in the records of any substantial immigration of Italian Jews into Austria, whereas there is plenty of evidence of a reverse migration of Jews into Italy after their expulsion from the Alpine provinces at the end of the fifteenth century." (p.71)
 * So the deleted genetic study does appear to support Koestler's theories and therefore, at the very least, demonstrates that at present the article is incorrect on this topic. Inaccuracy. At present a demonstrably false statement keeps being inserted in the lead, and it is ironically one that is contradicted by by the last line of the article which has a reliable cited source. Plus this has been pointed out previously.
 * Overall the article generally pushes a negative assessment of the book, and this is further evidence of it presenting a view despite reliable evidence to the contrary. I.e. the article repeatedly and despite appeals and suggestions for improvemnts appears to be violating core wiki policy of neutrality--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mystichumwipe, to begin with, Koestler's theory about Italian Jews is not the same as his theory about Ashkenazi Jews. Second, the study does not support Koestler;s theory about Italian Jews. Third, the article contains no "demonstrably false statement", in the lede, or anywhere else. And finally, and we must have been over this a dozen times now, do you have any reliable secondary sources that state that this study supports Koestler's theory? Not your personal opinion that it does, but a reliable secondary source that explicitly states this? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I have given a quote to demonstrate why I understand that it is the same. Could you please show me something that demonstrates why I am wrong. As, in a contest between just your say-so (opinion) versus a Koestler quote from the book in question, the Koestler quote surely should take precedence.
 * 2. I understand that you believe it does not support Koestler's theory. Again can you provide any supporting evidence to demonstrate the correctness of that claim? Otherwise it appears to be yet another personal opinion.
 * 3. If you read this: Inaccuracy you will see that we do not have to have all that to demonstrate false information needs to be removed from the article.
 * And where we have a reliable secondary source that states that the conclusions of modern genetic research "do not appear to support" the Khazar theory and goes on to say that neither do they disprove them, we cannot have a lead that contradicts that by saying categorically that they DO NOT support the Khazar thesis. That I regard as a no-brainer and demonstrates the non-neutrality of the article, at present.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the lede to clarify what reliable secondary sources say about Koestler's thesis. Regarding the rest of your comments, Wikipedia is not interested in what you "demonstrate", and the burden of proof is on you to show that this (or any) genetic study is in any way related to Koestler's theories. The article itself directly quotes what reliable secondary sources state regarding genetic studies and Koestler's book - and they all, without fail, state that these studies do not support Koestler's thesis. Also, since what I've said here is merely a repetition of policy and my previous comments, I will not reply to any comments except those that quote reliable sources that directly state that genetic studies support Koestler's thesis. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

External link to the Digital Book Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler
Is there any objection to adding a link to the book, 'The Thirteenth Tribe' by Arthur Koestler, located on Archive.org 'The Internet Archive'?Carmelmount (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC) banned sock