Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People

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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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#Criticism of works - BLP violation? 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? Zero^talk 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)

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 form 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))