Talk:Shlomo Sand

The thesis

The description in the article does not make Shlomo Sand's basic thesis clear. Is is that Judaism is a religion, and not a race? If so, nothing controversial in that. Or is it that religion can not form the basis for nationality? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's neither. He argues that the concept of "the Jewish people", as an ethnic community united by religion and a sense of shared ancestry is a relatively recent invention, promoted by the Zionist movement and the state of Israel. The thesis is certainly controversial; although Sand is not the first to argue this, I think he may be the first tenured academic historian, certainly the first at an Israeli university, to argue and document this. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since he seems notable, just try to put a clear description of his basic thesis into the article. (Personally, most of the Zionists I know never thought Judaism is anything but a religious tradition, with a number of cultural traditions that relate to the religion -- often relate to it rather loosely. I don't see anything to get excited about.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may not get excited about this; but our visitor who is insistent on comparing Sand to David Irving clearly does! RolandR (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was Hitler (and Alice Bailey) that called Judaism a race. It seems to me that Shlomo Sand is barking up the wrong tree, but since he is notable there is no arguing with that. For the sake of NPOV it would be good to mention any notable academic descenders....assuming there has been discussion. Indeed, is there anything to show that he been taken seriously by the academic community? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand's theories may be controversial but they are generally supported by the evidence and not disputed by the majority of Israeli academics. It is inevitable that some will be upset but critism of the overal concept is largely non existant so we need to be careful with it in this article. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the critism that has been added to the article is a violation of WP:BLP unless it can be supported by other RS. This book review by Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist and historian, in Haaretz is typical.
"When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew), is intended to promote the idea that Israel should be a "state of all its citizens" - Jews, Arabs and others - in contrast to its declared identity as a "Jewish and democratic" state. Personal stories, a prolonged theoretical discussion and abundant sarcastic quips do not help the book, but its historical chapters are well-written and cite numerous facts and insights that many Israelis will be astonished to read for the first time....Zand quotes from many existing studies, some of which were written in Israel but shunted out of the central discourse....Zand did not invent this thesis; 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others. Wayne (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss are very controversial and it is not true that they are supported by evidences but more by his interpretation of the "evidences".Also who say most academies in Israel agree with him.Oren.tal (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The author of the source in question

Looking at User:Sfrantzman is this individual notable enough or established enough for his oped on a website to be quoted?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he is not notable enough. And his user page on wikipedia is not a reference.

Notability would mean he is quoted by his peers... Ceedjee (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that individual is the one critic referred to in "He has been described by one critic as a revisionist pseudo-historian."--Peter cohen (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching for support for Sfrantzman's claim and it just isn't there. Reviews for the book are overwhelmingly favourable and the only major dissent I can find, apart from blogs claiming it is propaganda or Ami Isseroff's anti semitism claim, is a review by a humanities professor named Israel Bartal who does not dispute the claims as such but how they are "old news" presented poorly and misinterpreted etc which is reasonable criticism for any historical work. The Shalem Center includes the book in their "essential reading" list and gives it a favourable review so I can see no reason not to delete the claim Sand is a revisionist pseudo-historian and perhaps replace it with Bartal's critique. Even Bartal may not be appropriate because it is a minority view and to add it to the body is giving undue weight. Put both the Bartal and Frantzman links in the external links section. Wayne (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My mind is that Frantzman is a great guy (I like his books review on amazon) but he is nobody.

Ami Isserof if a specialist on the topic but no more than me. Given the quality of his website, I think we could, on very particular issues such eg the "battle of Latroun" or the "1948 war" keep him as representative of the "commentators view".

But here, they don't deserve to be quoted so I suggest to remove this information per wp:rs (he is nobody) and per wp:undue weight (he seems to defend a too strong minority view).

Ceedjee (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nation and Nationalism

The lead says of Sand that His main areas of teaching are Cinema and History, French Intellectual History, and Nation and Nationalism. Could someone clarify his qualifications in the area of "Nation and Nationalism"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for instance, in 2005-6 he taught a seminar at Tel-Aviv University on "Nationalism and the nation -- myth and history".[1](Sorry, the syllabus is availablr in Hebrew only.) If the university is satisfied with his qualification to do this, it should certainly satisfy us. RolandR (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, from what I have so far found, he seems to be most notable in the area of History of Cinema. If all he has done is teach an undergraduate class called "Nationalism and the nation -- myth and history", that does not seem to be very impressive. The still open question remains: how notable is this guy? Writing a controversial book may make him notable for the news coverage, but that does not automatically cash in as academic notability, and particularly not for "Nation and Nationalism" if he has no qualifications in that area. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's qualified -- he teaches the subject at a major university! RolandR (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all graduate students also teach courses at universities. Does that make every graduate student in the world notable in the subject of an undergraduate class they happened to teach? That seems doubtful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He published several books which have been peer reviewed, and he has been covered by the mainstream media. I don't think this article has a notability problem. -- Nudve (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But, as you know, he is not a "graduate student". He is a professor of history, a member of the senior academic staff, who has previously taught at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and the University of California, Berkeley. This constant niggling is getting vexatious; don't be a nudnik. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but remember that just yesterday you called my removing unsourced material "vandalism"; when you know perfectly well that I may be a pest, but that I am not a vandal.

What I would like is that Sand's notability be demonstrated in the article. You may consider that vandalism, but I consider it improving the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't unsourced; the source was just not cited inline. And I see that you accept that you are indeed a nudnik. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would I deny what I take pride in?

You say that it was not unsourced, it just did not include the source.......What?! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All I did was move the source from a general "external link" to a particular point in the text. But it remains a source for much of the other content, too. RolandR (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you condescended to bring it out of hiding for us. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(move left) Why did you remove this section? it's cited so well it's almost a copyvio. I suppose we could argue about Frantzman's article. WP:EL and WP:BLP are generally against that. There are other critics (in Hebrew) which could be added to the article. However, since Sand's theory is currently not developed, we should take care not to give his critics undue weight. -- Nudve (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the refs?

I don't think anything in the article is on a good foundation of citations now. After the "controversial" book is published in English, there will be reviews and academic discussion to work with. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

this is the ref. -- Nudve (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, is it asking too much that the ref be put in?

But, I still see nothing to support this: He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking. If I missed it, just point it out. I have no intention of removing material that is supported by good sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I did put that in, and you reverted. It's there, just press Ctrl+F and find it. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

3 wp:rs requests

Hi, I didn't find the references for the following points and I could not source this :

• category:New Historians
• communist
• anti-zionist

The 1st seems false from my point of view (he didn't write about '48) and the last two ones would require wp:rs sources per WP:BLP. Ceedjee (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Ceedjee (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be removed. Theoretically, this article could be used for the category, and perhaps for classifying him as a post-Zionist. -- Nudve (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Communist" and "anti-Zionist" are both supported in the body of the article; which makes clear that he is a life-long communist, and saying that he belonged to Matzpen without being anti-zionist is absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha : wp:rs... always wp:rs... Ceedjee (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I share Nuvde analysis.

I think this article is enough to state he considers himself to be post-zionist.

I have here a quote from an interview he made and where he states : "Ne me faites cependant pas dire que je suis antisioniste" which means "Nevertheless, don't make me say that I am antizionist". [2]

Ceedjee (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding post-zionist, as long as anti-zionist is not removed. As I said anyone who belonged to Matzpen is obviously anti-zionist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Matzpen was dissolved in 1980. It is not enough to state that he is an antizionist, particularly if he states the contrary.

What is written exactly here ?

If all that we have he what he did at that time, we have to remove this from the lead per wp:undue and anti-zionist should also be removed given he disagrees per wp:blp. Ceedjee (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I want it in the article because it is supported by sources. Of course, now he wants to deny his anti-zionist history, because when his book is translated into English he will certainly be attacked for writing anti-zionist propaganda. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcom,

I leave you the opportunity (1 week) to provide wp:rs sources for all your analyses.

They may seem judicious to you. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia principles require WP:RS sources and forbid any WP:PR. What you do is WP:PR

So, please, could provide :

• source(s) for his alleged antizionism (per wp:rs and per wpr:blp given he claims the contrary in the wp:rs sources I gave). If you don't find any, we will remove this; if you find some, per WP:NPoV, we will try to give all pov's with their wp:due weight.
• source(s) for his alleged communist affiliation. For this, I required here above a translation of the hebrew link given (what is exactly said - litteral translation). Note that even if he was communist when he was young, we will have to discuss about wp:due weight concerning the interest information.

I have removed New Historians given on that issue, there is not wp:rs sources and I am sure he is not (yet ?) considered as such.

Note I am particularly "unfair" because currently per wp:blp this should be removed. And let's not discuss about the tone in the lead that sounds as the only aim was to give discredit to this guy (see straw man : he is communist and anti-zionist, so he cannot say anything serious).

Ceedjee (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, I wish you would figure out how to spell my name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ceedjee, perhaps you could explain why you think calling Sand a Communist and an anti-Zionist (which is supported in the body of the article) "discredits" him, and is an example of the well known logical fallacy called straw man? I note, for instance that RolandR, who is active in editing this article, on his user page calls himself, both a Communist and an anti-Zionist [3]. Clearly he does not intend, by saying that, to discredit himself....and I do not think it discrediting either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on my user page I do not describe myself as a communist, but as a Marxist, and a supporter of the Fourth International. Let's be accurate here! On the issue itself, obviously I do not believe that it is to anyone's discredit to be, or be described as, a communist and anti-Zionist. Nevertheless, the act of so describing them may indeed be designed to discredit them, if carried out by someone who believes these terms to be pejorative, and assumes that others hold this same prejudice. (NB - I have absolutely no intention of suggesting that this was Malcolm's motive. I have no idea what his own views are here, and I am merely making a hypothetical point). In this particular case, since Sand does clearly not currently self-identify as either a communist or an anti-Zionist (whatever he may have said or been in the past), I would agree that it is not appropriate to include these terms as descriptors in the lead. It seems to me a case of unacceptable synthesis. The article later discusses his early membership of Banki, and his later move to Matzpen. I will try later to translate relevant sections of the Hebrew interview cited, to see if any of this could or should be fleshed out. But as it stands at present, I agree with Ceedjee that the terms are at best irrelevant in the lead. RolandR (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding. I concur with you. There is absolutely nothing bad (or good) to be (or not to be) anti-zionist (or supporter of zionism) and communist (or Marxist).

Ceedjee (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To give you credit, you did spell my name right. I supposed that is the best I can hope for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I don't understand why we're farting about with this. To say that Sand is an anti-Zionist on the basis of membership in an organization that hasn't existed for at least 20 years shows failure to understand how verbs work. WP:BLP requires meeting a high standard on issues like this, and so I have removed it. If there is a proper WP:RS for it then it can be re-added -- but we don't sit around waiting a week for someone to come up with sources for controversial claims about living people. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support your actions.

4 editors who share the same analysis (but who don't have the same affiliation) : Nuvde, RolandR, Nomoskedasticity, Ceedjee agree to remove both these information. Malcolm Schosha still disagrees.

If anybody can find wp:rs sources (I looked for but didn't find any) related to these (currently alleged) affirmations, we can consider addind these information in respect of the other wp:rs principles. Ceedjee (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Political opinion section ?

I have no idea about the influence of Shlomo Zand on mass opinion or his involvment in politics.
I guessed (but only guessed) from my recent readings that he was (strongly) post-zionist (opposed to any collaboration with Ariel high school/university - supporter of post-Zionist historians - claiming to have 5 non-zionist PhD students) but claiming not to go as far as "his friend Ilan Pappé) and supporting the existence of Israel as a State but not a Jewish State.
Do people who know more this man think it could be worth developing a "political opinion" section ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand's political views are on furthest fringe of Israeli political thinking. Not to make that clear in the article is a serious problem with WP:NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The questions was : "Do his political views deserve to be discussed ?" If the answer is "yes", then the questions will be : "What are his political views ?" based on wp:rs sources.

If we want to point out he is "on furthest fringe of Israeli politicla thinking", we have to source this.

From what I read of him, he is "just" a post-Zionist. Ceedjee (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Corect me if I'm worng, but isn't this a Wikipedia mirror (that is, the biography section, under the header "Shlomo Sand")? -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That article is by a well know Israeli journalist, and I believe that the bio was lifted virtually without change from that -- making it a possible copyright violation.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree on copyright violation point. To use the article at all (i.e., for a re-write of the section), we'll need original publication information; www.martinfrost.ws is not sufficient to demonstrate that the article meets WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The original Haaretz article by Ofri Ilani doesn not have a bio section. I don't suppose Martin Frost is the one who wrote "For Ofri Ilani..." immediately after mirroring Ilani's entire article. -- Nudve (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here. I believe it is true that Sand's parents were Communist activists, though I don't remember where I read this and will have to check; it may be one of the Hebrew texts cited. But Ofri Ilani does not write this, and the article Malcolm cites is by Martin Frost, rather than Ilani. So -- if Frost is a reliable source, which he may not be -- then the statement shoulkd be cited to him, not Ilani. I will look through my sources, and attempt to find a better reference; meanwhile, I poeopose to amend the existing rerefence to remove Ilani's name, which is misleading. And, to prevent any suspicions, I recognise that Malcolm's citation was carried out in good faith; it looks to me as though Frost himself is guilty of some sleight of hand here. RolandR (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, and looking at the Frost article, I see that the only source for the statement that Sand's parents were in the CP was a copy of our article, which Frost uses in full without acknowledgement. This raises concerns about Frost's own reliability; but in any case, it means that we cannot use this as a source for the statement, since this would make our own unsupported assertion the only evidence. So I will remove the citation, place a fact tag, and search for a better source. RolandR (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The best I could find is this interview in Hebrew, in which he says "My father, the communist..." -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia article states that his father was a communist. But no reference is given, and it seems that Hebrew WP is laxer than we are on citations in most cases.

And to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding by Malcolm above, any copyvio has been in Froist's unacknowledged lifting of our article, rather than the reverse.RolandR (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is unsourced should come out of the article. Is there agreement on that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

First tag statements you consider to be unsourced, in order to give other editors the chance to add or clarify citations. RolandR (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be the one to tag it? Is the Bio based in reliable sources, or not? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're the one who is unsatisfied by the sourcing; and because it is unacceptable to remove text without first asking for a source. As the guideline states: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behaviour of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources onesself that support such material, and cite them. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page". RolandR (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who said there is no source for Sands father being a Communist. But I am quite willing to leave that for now. Or if you want to remove it, that is okay too. I think it would be just as well to leave the article for now, and wait till his book is published in English, because more sources will come available then.

Aside from Matzpen being anti-Zionist. That needs to be in the article now because otherwise readers will not understand the nature of the group. It is highly relevant to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

See [4] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Query

Heyo RolandR,
I'd appreciate an explanation to the virtue of the following edit - [5].
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on Malcolm's talk page and at the AN/I discussion, the phrase is redundant. It's not as though there was a Zionist Matzpen. Matzpen is wikilinked, so interested readers who know nothing about it (if there are any such) can read our article and see in what way it was "more radical" than Banki. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also replied. Virtually no reader of the article will understand what organization Sand joined without some explanation. To claim all these reverts were over worry about one word being redundant is laughable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another attempt at well-poisoning to me. Socialists groups are notorious for splits and fusions, their positions are in constant flux and heatedly argued over at every opportunity. For every socialist who claims Matzpen was an anti-Zionist movement, there will be a dozen more saying their position in no way resembled that of "anti-Zionism" as defined by anyone else. The fact that Matzpen disbanded, even while anti-Zionism is stronger than ever, suggests that either anti-Zionism was not central to their beliefs or that they never had a satisfactory and consistent position on it. PR^talk 21:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

RolandR wrote (in his edit summery): Neither primary sourcing nor self-promotion, but an interview by a reputable journalist

It makes no difference if he is being quoted by a journalist. If it is a direct statement by Sand, it is still a primary source in the article. See [6]

===Definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary===

Various professional fields treat the distinction between primary and secondary sources in differing fashions. Some fields and references also further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here as follows:

*Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; videos; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; untabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; the original written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations which have not been published in a peer reviewed source; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

*Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event or body of primary-source material and may include an interpretation, analysis, or synthetic claims about the subject. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

*Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources.

Also, including crap like, There is a price to be paid in Israeli academia for expressing views of this sort, is just an attempt to editorialize the article. Don't do that. If you want to include that view, there needs to be a secondary source to support it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SOAP applies here too. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that on the article of Shlomo Sand, we don't need secondary sources to report Shlomo Sand's mind when it is attributed.

I put back the material I had added about the criticism of his work.

The other part (which you both criticize) is not relevant from my point of view.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee wrote: we don't need secondary sources to report Shlomo Sand's mind when it is attributed.Where did you find that? The whole basis of WP articles, as I understand it, is reliable secondary sources. Of course those statements probably do reptesent what he said, but we can not base the article on what he said. And if good secondary sources are lacking, why does this article even exist? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot once again that it is Shlomo Sand's article.

And anyway, that is reported too by the reporter who interviewed him and took care to write that particular part of Shlomo's mind in his article.

Leave the barricade. Ceedjee (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not respond to anything I wrote. WP requires using secondary [7], not primary sources: All articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Why do you think the Sand article is exempt from that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd source is the journalist from Ha'aretz who wrote the article. The info is not from Sand himself.

What follows is 100% in accordance with policy, particularly wp:npov :

''Shlomo Sand reports that "[he has] been criticised in Israel for writing about Jewish history when European history is [his] specialty. But, [according to him], a book like this needed a historian who is familiar with the standard concepts of historical inquiry used by academia in the rest of the world.''"<ref name=CookReview/>

Ceedjee (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm I'm afraid you are simply wrong here -

• As to WP policy itself, WP:PRIMARY does not say primary sources cannot be used, it simply says they cannot be used as the basis for subsequent interpretation by the editor citing them. It's fundamentally going back to WP:OR. Direct references are fine. Per the policy - "a primary source may be used .. to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"
• As has been pointed out, we have a quote by Sand being cited in a reliable secondary source, so the above point is rather academic anyway.

By your logic and interpretation of policy, no article here can ever quote from or refer to words spoken by anyone, as people's own words constitute primary sources and such sources cannot be used. That cannot be a serious proposition. --Nickhh (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case the direct quotes are being misused for WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see WP:SOAP here : "'Shlomo Sand reports that "[he has] been criticised in Israel for writing about Jewish history when European history is [his] specialty. But, [according to him], a book like this needed a historian who is familiar with the standard concepts of historical inquiry used by academia in the rest of the world." Ceedjee (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

a book like this needed a historian who is familiar with the standard concepts of historical inquiry used by academia in the rest of the world This is Sand trying to pump up his qualifications. In fact his specialty, and PhD thesis, is on French cinema. Perhaps he should have written a book on the Nouvelle Vague. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. As the article states, his thesis was indeed on history; specifically on the history of philosophy. RolandR (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv University puts cinema first [8], and I have a distinct recollection reading that cinema his original specialty. I will do some further checking. But whatever the case, putting in primary material in which he is busy pumping up his qualifications -- instead of demonstrating qualifications -- clearly comes under the heading of WP:SOAP; and, at best it adds nothing informative to the article. I will soon remove it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the index, they put "19th and 20th Century History first, while in Hebrew they list "Modern History" first. This is known as alphabetical order. If you delete Sand's comment it will be, I believe, the fifth time you have deleted the same properly-sourced and relevant comment which has been inserted by two editors and accepted by several others. This could be seen as vexatious editing against consensus. RolandR (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes Sand's self glorifying claims relevant to the article? Why not use other, secondary sources, for that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The way Sand perceive the critics he is adressed and the answer he gives to these critics is of course relevant.

And there were reported by the journalist who interviewed him (a 2nd source).

Ceedjee (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories

I have added this category because Sand believes that the Jews have conspired to make the world believe that they exist and have a history with ancient origins. Daniel Pipes wrote an essay, Dealing With Middle Eastern Conspiracy Theories, which discusses the generation of such fringe theories [9]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the category because you don't have wp:rs source for this.

This also sounds too much like wp:soap.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ref needed

This sentence is unsourced : "This is the first analysis of Sand's book by a major scholar to be published in English" and obviously false given Tom Segev is a major scholar and published in English on march 1 a critic of the book. It is also a little bit unrelevant or at least, I don't see the interest of knowing who is or was the first one to analyse Sand's book. So, it must be removed. Ceedjee (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I have removed it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

deleted sentence

RolandR: wrote in his edit summery: Removed alleged quote not found in the source cited

RolandR, this is the link to the article I used [10]. Below I am copying the article with the quote I added in bold.

Last update - 00:00 21/03/2008

Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani

Tags: Palestinians

Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E.

According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).

Unlike other "new historians" who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a "nation-race" with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: "There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world ... have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation - he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel."

According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."

So when, in fact, was the Jewish people invented, in Sand's view? At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace.

Actually, most of your book does not deal with the invention of the Jewish people by modern Jewish nationalism, but rather with the question of where the Jews come from.

Sand: "My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period - what they wrote about conversion."

Sand, an expert on 20th-century history, has until now researched the intellectual history of modern France (in "Ha'intelektual, ha'emet vehakoah: miparashat dreyfus ve'ad milhemet hamifrats" - "Intellectuals, Truth and Power, From the Dreyfus Affair to the Gulf War"; Am Oved, in Hebrew). Unusually, for a professional historian, in his new book he deals with periods that he had never researched before, usually relying on studies that present unorthodox views of the origins of the Jews.

Experts on the history of the Jewish people say you are dealing with subjects about which you have no understanding and are basing yourself on works that you can't read in the original.

"It is true that I am an historian of France and Europe, and not of the ancient period. I knew that the moment I would start dealing with early periods like these, I would be exposed to scathing criticism by historians who specialize in those areas. But I said to myself that I can't stay just with modern historiographic material without examining the facts it describes. Had I not done this myself, it would have been necessary to have waited for an entire generation. Had I continued to deal with France, perhaps I would have been given chairs at the university and provincial glory. But I decided to relinquish the glory."

Inventing the Diaspora

"After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom" - thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand's book, entitled "The Invention of the Diaspora." Sand argues that the Jewish people's exile from its land never happened.

"The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it," Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

"I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land - a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled."

If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

"No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"

And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?

"The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba's rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all."

How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?

"I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina's Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism."

Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria - a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.

Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

"At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe - three million Jews in Poland alone," he says. "The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward."

'Degree of perversion'

If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?

"The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as 'the mother of the diasporas' in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck."

Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

"It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist."

Is there no justification for this fear?

"No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens."

In effect you are saying that there is no such thing as a Jewish people.

"I don't recognize an international people. I recognize 'the Yiddish people' that existed in Eastern Europe, which though it is not a nation can be seen as a Yiddishist civilization with a modern popular culture. I think that Jewish nationalism grew up in the context of this 'Yiddish people.' I also recognize the existence of an Israeli people, and do not deny its right to sovereignty. But Zionism and also Arab nationalism over the years are not prepared to recognize it.

"From the perspective of Zionism, this country does not belong to its citizens, but rather to the Jewish people. I recognize one definition of a nation: a group of people that wants to live in sovereignty over itself. But most of the Jews in the world have no desire to live in the State of Israel, even though nothing is preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a nation."

What is so dangerous about Jews imagining that they belong to one people? Why is this bad?

"In the Israeli discourse about roots there is a degree of perversion. This is an ethnocentric, biological, genetic discourse. But Israel has no existence as a Jewish state: If Israel does not develop and become an open, multicultural society we will have a Kosovo in the Galilee. The consciousness concerning the right to this place must be more flexible and varied, and if I have contributed with my book to the likelihood that I and my children will be able to live with the others here in this country in a more egalitarian situation - I will have done my bit.

"We must begin to work hard to transform our place into an Israeli republic where ethnic origin, as well as faith, will not be relevant in the eyes of the law. Anyone who is acquainted with the young elites of the Israeli Arab community can see that they will not agree to live in a country that declares it is not theirs. If I were a Palestinian I would rebel against a state like that, but even as an Israeli I am rebelling against it."

The question is whether for those conclusions you had to go as far as the Kingdom of the Khazars.

"I am not hiding the fact that it is very distressing for me to live in a society in which the nationalist principles that guide it are dangerous, and that this distress has served as a motive in my work. I am a citizen of this country, but I am also a historian and as a historian it is my duty to write history and examine texts. This is what I have done."

If the myth of Zionism is one of the Jewish people that returned to its land from exile, what will be the myth of the country you envision?

"To my mind, a myth about the future is better than introverted mythologies of the past. For the Americans, and today for the Europeans as well, what justifies the existence of the nation is a future promise of an open, progressive and prosperous society. The Israeli materials do exist, but it is necessary to add, for example, pan-Israeli holidays. To decrease the number of memorial days a bit and to add days that are dedicated to the future. But also, for example, to add an hour in memory of the Nakba [literally, the "catastrophe" - the Palestinian term for what happened when Israel was established], between Memorial Day and Independence Day."

I assume this resolves the issue, and am returning the sentence to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you cited is the Jonathan Cook review, in which this sentence does not appear. If the sentence is elsewhere, please amend the article accordingly. Meanwhile, I have inserted a "citation needed" tag at the appropriate place. RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" link

Under the section of critics, I added a link to a brief critique, with additional links. It was deleted as "irrelevant" and from a "right-wing blog." Given that the blog post is precisely on point, I don't see how it's irrelevant, nor do I see how an editors view that a blog is "right-wing" has anything to do with whether the content is a valid critique. Stop deleting it. Here's the link, which anyone can see is not "irrelevant." [Your response is ridiculous, the author is certainly well-known, better known that Shlomo Sand, and has more experience with the topic at hand than Sand did before he wrote this book. Moreover, the blog post isn't "about a living person," it's a critique of his book. Nevertheless, I take your point that it's better to link to non-self-published sources if similar critiques are available, and since they are, I won't put this back.] http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_08-2009_03_14.shtml#1236900840—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.198 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is quite clear: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." In this case, since the author is certainly not a "well-known professional researcher or writer", the quote is totally unacceptable, and its continued re-addition constitutes deliberate vandalism. RolandR 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another bio overwhelmed by irrelevant criticism

So, yet another bio overwhelmed by irrelevant criticism, as if articles in the English Wikipedia must be written to bolster the preferred myths of Israel. Sand himself seems to have a highly distinguished career (judging by his Tel-Aviv official CV) but his intellectual accomplishments must be buried in the small print while his politics (30 years old and wholly unverifiable to the English reader) must be broadcast against him.

Sand has been 27 years at a top Israeli University and must have done lots of interesting things other than write this rather well received book, criticism of which has to dominate his article. Who are we to say, in Wikipedia's neutral voice (ie before we release the dogs in the biggest section of all, "Critics") that the Bar Kochba exile is "accepted history"? The archaeological record is clear, there was no Exodus and no Solomon's Temple - the default position for Wikipedia must be to treat this last myth of nationalist historians with deep distrust. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck with that. It does seem a bit odd that the "criticism" is considerably longer than the discussion of his ideas! But Sand's views will become the accepted doctrine of the Israeli state long before Wikipedia features an unbiased article about Israeli issues. Grace Note (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Attack on this article

This article has been mentioned in a comment by one "jimmyo" in his response to an article by Steven Plaut on FrontPage Magazine: "Aside from the absurdity of using Wikipedia as a serious scholarly source, and the even greater absurdity of using the book's own marketing site to praise the book, it should be noted that - like many items about the Middle East on Wikipedia - the entry about Sand and his book was written by a far-leftist anti-Semite who stalks Wikipedia and systematically distorts items about Israel and Jews." RolandR (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Section "Refutation by DNA Analysis"

Some comments I put at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People#The section "DNA Analysis", issues for discussion apply here too. In fact, I propose that this section in this article be removed altogether due to its problematic nature and the difficulty of making it balanced without undue length. The subject arguably belongs in the article about Sand's book but I don't think it belongs here. Zero^talk 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact genetic research has been heavily manipulated. The below article in The Jerusalem Post said that Jews had more common genes with Kurds, Turks and Armenians (non-Semites) than with Palestinian Arabs (Semites). It should be noted that there are also other genetic research comparing Jews with Europeans and concluding that Jews have more similarities with Palestinians than the Europeans. Both these facts do not reject one another.

Genetics and the Jewish identity DIANA MUIR APPELBAUM and PAUL S. APPELBAUM, MD 02/11/2008 The Jerusalem Post

Can be viewed in Google cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3idCiLQN_bIJ:www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx%3Fid%3D91746+THE+JERUSALEM+POST+Genetics+and+the+Jewish+identity&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behruzhimo (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that only purported refutation by DNA Analysis is permitted. Endorsement of Sand's thesis by DNA analysis is apparently not permitted. I have tried to provide balance by including a summary and reference to work by Avshalom Zoosman-Diskin which tends to support Sand's thesis in part, and fairly pathetic arguments have been used for removing it. I am putting it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devils Advocate1000 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. While the study you are trying to add may be true, it cannot be included because no reliable source has linked it to Sand. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So if Sand had said 2 +2 = 5, no-one would be able to post anything refuting it, no matter how reliable, unless he/she found a source referencing Sand before refuting it? There is nothing in what I have read in WP:SYNTH to support that. And since the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is not original research. I have not combined conclusions from two sources to create a third ine so it isn't synthesis either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devils Advocate1000 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you didn't read WP:SYNTH very carefully. After an example involving Smith and Jones and plagiarism, the policy says:

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Malik's comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly is my analysis in the edit? What extra conclusion have I added? It is a straightforward description of a relevant piece of peer-reviewed work. I look forward to a more convincing explanation, otherwise I will continue to assume this is about censorship./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devils Advocate1000 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Devils Advocate1000, the extra conclusion you are adding is that DNA evidence supports Sand's thesis. According to Wiki-rules, you've got to have a reliable source that makes that connection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Except I haven't included any such statement in my edit. I simply presented a description of Zoossmann-Diskin's research. It is relevant to the section the edit is included in. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Which reliable secondary source says it's relevant to Sand's theories? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The English language. Sand says Jews don't have common ancestry. So does Zoosmann-Diskin. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I just had breakfast with the English language, and it assures me that it never claimed Zoossman-Diskin's study was relevant to Sand's theories. So, you'll have to cite a reliable secondary source instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malik. It is just your opinion that Zoossmann-Diskin supports Sand. It could just as easily be argued that Sand is refuted: Sand supports the Khazar hypothesis but Zoossmann-Diskin gives evidence for a south-European hypothesis. It is because of the possibility of different interpretations that we are required to find reliable published sources that provide the interpretation as well as the raw data. Zero^talk 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to find one for an interpretation I don't explicitly make? It is the "raw data" - ie my quotes from the abstract of Zoossmann-Diskin's paper - that is misleading you into thinking that my edit is explicitly asserting that conclusion, and I have provided the necessary source for that. You should wonder about why you apparently believe that I have explicitly added a conclusion that I haven't. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so you didn't include this study because it "to some degree tends to support Sand's thesis as a counterpoint"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My purposes aren't relevant. It is what is in the actual edit that matters. In the edit, other than the words of Zoosmann-Diskin, there is no other conclusion offered. If you conclude that from Zoossmann-Diskin's words that he tends to support Sand to some degree, that is entirely up to you. I did not assert that in the edit. So no original research, no synthesis. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your purposes are indeed relevant, because we're not playing "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" games here. You included the material as an argument that Zoosman-Diskin supported Sand's theories; whether you make that argument explicit or implicit is not relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Malik and Zero have it right; we don't know how this specific study is relevant to Sand's work, it if has any relevance at all. We must rely on reliable secondary sources to make the connection and explain it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly relevant because Sand says that Jews are not a distinct people (in the ancestral/hereditary sense), the DNA evidence that has been permitted to remain in the article claims otherwise. The Zoossmann-Diskin research whose inclusion is being obstructed says that Jews do not have common ancestry. No interpretation necessary. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that says it's relevant to Sand. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

When you show me where I make that assertion in the edit. By the way, if no better arguments are presented, the edit will be going back in very soon.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Three long-term, very experienced administrators have now explained to you several times why Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy means the material is not appropriate. I suggest, rather than restoring this inappropriate material again, you listen to them instead. Editors who persistently violate WP:ICANTHEARYOU are typically blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarity btw arguments of Prof. Sand and the founding fathers of Zionism

I added the following information, please do not remove it:

Sand has repeatedly stated [9] that the founding fathers of Zionism, not Sand, were the first Jews to acknowledge that the Palestinian people were descended from the biblical ancient Hebrews. Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later president of Israel, and David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, stated on several occasions that the peasants of Palestine were the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Judea.[10] [11] [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behruzhimo (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH

Editors please bear in mind the two above linked sources. We prefer secondary sources to primary sources, especially when secondary souring is ample, like in this case. Also we don't add to our articles our analysis of the secondary sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

jogg.info as a source

Regarding the issue of the Khazars [11] "The Khazars and the Smoking Gun of Haplogroup Q". jogg.info seems like a professional journal and has an editorial board [12] currently led by someone from University of Leicester and its past editor being someone with credential as well [13]. So removing the info of that Ellen-Levy Coffman person [14] because she specializes in law (putting aside her work in archaeology and on three different DNA projects) doesn't take into account jogg.info's editorial board and thus its credentials generally on the topic at hand.Historylover4 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussions at WP:RSN have concluded that JOGG is not automatically a reliable source, eg "a borderline source for anything technical." Take this specific author to WP:RSN if you think her article passes our criteria for reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arxiv.org source

Arxiv.org is clearly WP:SPS is not peer reviewed or anything.The newly added source should be removed until it will be printed in Peer revied journal also please look at [15] espacially for such WP:REDFLAG claim--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike (1)please familiarize yourself with the subject you are editing before waiving policy statements at others. (2) please read your link where it says:

in other cases where a reliable publication of the same paper cannot be found, then arxiv papers should be considered as self-published sources: only reliable to the extent that their authors are known experts in the subject of the paper.

SPS perhaps but reliable to the extent that they are written by known experts, and Eran Elhaik has a doctorate in Genetic Epidemiology, Population Genetics, and Molecular Evolution from John Hopkins University, where he works at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine.

The claim is not WP:REDFLAG for the simple reason that, if you actually read Sand's history of the subject, pp.231-249, you will see that he sums up extensive scholarship on the subject in several languages by Abraham Harkavy, Simon Dubnow, Pavel Kokovtov, Mikhail Artamonov, Ignacy Schiper (German wiki), Salo Wittmayer Baron, Ben-Zion Dinur, Abraham Polak, etc. Sand argues that all publications in Hebrew on the subject stopped almost immediately after the foundation of the state of Israel, concomitantly with an antisemitic censorshiop of the subject in Soviet historiography, but were taken up by mainstream orientalists like Douglas Dunlop, and Peter Golden, until Koestler published his book, at which point the thesis was dismissed as 'Palestinian propaganda'! Most recently the thesis reappeared in P.B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Rona-Tas (eds.) The world of the Khazars Brill, 2007. Read Golden's two papers (pp.7-58, pp.123-162, esp.pp.142ff.)and you will see that there is a massive amount of mainstream scholarly research on the theory ('the overwhelming evidence of the written sources' p.150), and that it has widespread non-ideological endorsement among orientalists.

Please do not waive wikipolicy my way without doing your homework on the subject of the article beforehand. Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned about this myself but Nishidani has convinced me. Eran Elhaik has the appropriate credentials[16] and we are clearly attributing this to him. I wish he mentioned Sand specifically but he is specific about the Khazarian hypothesis. I still think that there is an argument that particularly as he doesn't mention Sand, this doesn't really belong in this article as I don't think that this is the appropriate article for a detailed discussion on the Khazarian hypothesis. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Only edited this page because I reread Sand's book 2 days ago, while doing some private work, and naturally looked him up on wiki. You're right that this is not the place for the Khazarian hypothesis. My problem in reading the page was to see a whole section citing geneticists who dismissed his position on this, many re the Khazars. Once I saw the revert, I read Elhaik's abstract: he seems actually to have done the first specific empirical research on the specific Khazar/Jewish DNA area, and my reaction was: if we have several geneticists dismissing him on the Khazars on general DNA studies that hitherto exclude that population, then Elhaik's provistory paper is worth including as a balance. As per my page, if he doesn't mention Sand there, well, WP:OR objections are valid. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

He uses Sand's Invention of the Jewish People as a source. You can read the paper, it's at [17] and see what you think and whether it's OR. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sand is no genetict he is scholar of Cinema history that has nothing to do with Genetic research so his book will not make the claim less redflag.We should wait that the article will be printed in respectable journal and then we can include it in wikipedia article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

His claims go against mainstream scholarship.His claims are clearly WP:FRINGE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary, and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support,.

Shrike, please do me that favour. Just on this one edit I have had to reread today roughly 100 pages offline, and now require at least 2 hours to read and reread Elhaik's paper. I admire the speed with which you can read and digest 'The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder,' but less so the fact that the paper has nothing to do with the edit under discussion (though the very term 'Ashkenazi' as used there is subject to a critique in Elhaik's paper).

That this is not WP:Fringe I argued above, and you have not replied, but merely repeated your personal conviction. You come back with a comfortable cite from one of Bernard Lewis's books which was published in 1986 before most of the genetic research on which these population drifts are being calculated became available. Even Homer nods. I'm not impressed by citations that dismiss the hypothesis, which as Golden's papers show is perfectly respectable and the object of global scholarly focus, as popular among antisemites, which only insinuates that an Israeli like Eran Elhaik is an exemplar of that mythical bogey, the self-hating Jew. The Cohens in my family wouldn't think so, and I don't think such innuendoes appropriateNishidani (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I never liked the genetics section in this article. It is not proper to select sources in a transparent attempt to argue for or against Sand's hypotheses. It is OR. This new paper is no exception. Although Elhaik cites Sand, he does so only as background and doesn't draw any genetic conclusions from him. It is also clear that people here don't really understand what Elhaik claims to show. He does not claim that European Jews are entirely or even mostly descended from converted Khazars. He only claims that there is a large genetic component from the Caucasus: "We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans". He also says that he doesn't claim to disprove the work of Behar and Atzmon. Zero^talk 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but try to get nuance into wiki, and you die in your tracks, esp. with this genetic stuff. The whole article doesn't do justice to the complexity of Sand's book, and I agree that the genetic section could go. Its unchallenged existence here as an empirical dismissal of Sand's theory prompted my own revert to allow Elhaik's paper in as balance to the negative stacking of the page. I think we need to focus on this and figure out what to do. I only support retention of Elhaik's paper as balance, if the other stuff is retained. If editors concur that the reviews of his historical study by geneticists is inappropriate, we can elide the lot, and perhaps transfer the stuff to Archaeogenetics or the The Thirteenth Tribe or Khazars, or wherever. Elhaik was struck as a youngster by Koestler's book, and he cites it. He cites Sand twice. I don't think it is WP:OR to note that this paper bears on, since it is self-consciously, influenced by Sand's book. But I've seen weird things argued from WP:OR and have to defer to experts on this. Almost all historical articles on the Middle East in wiki grossly violate WP:RS since they are written out of the Bible, which, as 1 and a half centuries of form criticism have comprehensively shown, is not an historical narrative, but a late teleological rewriting of traditions in order to underwrite a priestly worldview. No one complains.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

References

(ec)Sand is "Professor of History" at Tel-Aviv University, not "Professor of Film History". His area of specialisation is actually intellectual history and the history of ideas; and The Invention of the Jewish People is not a study of genetics, but of intellectual history. Specifically, it is a study of the way in which the understanding and analysis of "Jewish history" (a term he does not accept as a category) has changed as a result of ideological drives. We do not need to take his word on genetics, and nor does he ask us to do so. Rather, he cites very many experts, and draws the appropriate historical and historiographical conclusions from their work. RolandR (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

However, we should not have anything that doesn't specifically discuss Sand. And this paragraph does not discuss Sand, it discusses the Khazarian hypothesis and this is not the appropriate article for that discussion. It's simply inappropriate for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. There's a case for the paragraph that discusses Sand's book, although I'd rather see the whole section removed as it attracts those who want to argue their position on the Khazar issue rather than contribute to a biography. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this principle, but I think logic commends that the whole section be removed on the same grounds, Doug. What you say does not apply only to Elhaik.
• Notes 14-17 do not discuss Sand. Note 14 does not even mention Sand or the Khazars. Notes 15-17 don't mention Sand himself. 15 links to his book, while 16-17 mention it explicitly and say the paper in note 14 refutes Sand's thesis. So again notes 14-17 do not discuss Sand, (they) discusses the Khazarian hypothesis as putatively refuted by a paper which mentions neither Sand nor the Khazars and doesn't even address the issue of Khazar genetics which Elhaik's paper specifically does. All three newspaper sources repeat a meme, in short, whioch hardly bears on Sand, nor on the academic reception of his work. So they have no place here either.
• Begley, note 15, even manages the minor miracle of endorsing the concept of widespread conversion (which Sand among many scholars maintains) while in the same breath saying his book is refuted.
• In sum, the whole section has nothing to do with Sand the person or scholar as peer reviewed by historians (or geneticists interested in the Khazar hypothesis, for example), but with a few tidbits, (notably caricatured, none of the 3 in notes 15-17 manages to construe his book correctly, and indeed all misrepresent it, as is the right of journalists to engage in wild Original Research without wiki restrictions!) regarding one of his books.
• I'm fine with moving all of this over to the The Invention of the Jewish People page. I don't think an exception should be made of Elhaik's paper, which happens to be the only one of the 5 sources which explicitly takes up Sand's challenge and acknowledges him, by adducing him 15 times as a support for statements he makes, and thus germinal for his research. It should be noted that throws down the gauntlet to geneticists on p.319, and so far, as far as I can see, only Elhaik picked it up. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's the best thing to do. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the whole section, except for a brief synopsis of Invention needs to go there, but I'd prefer that more people pitch in on this before moving it, or at least for the moment the DNA section.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think this article is WP:BLP1E Sand not famous for anything else but for his book so maybe this article should merged to the book article.Elhayak article shouldn't belong to to book either as he don't discuss it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as an academic he is an expert on Georges Sorel, second I'd imagine in Israel only to Ze'ev Sternhell on that topic. This article must give a brief synopsis of his several books each, and where possible fill out further details on his academic career. This means work, rather than erasure. It's worthwhile reminding oneself from time to time of the words attributed to Talleyrand,pas trop de zèle. Abolishing an article out of dislike of the person is not the way to go.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

the paper of Elhaik

So now there is a revert war over the paper of Elhaik, which is available for free here. As I've stated above, I'm dubious about having genetics stuff on this page at all. I'll make some comments, though. Genome Biology and Evolution is one of the most prestigious and appropriate scientific journals for this type of study, so claims that Elhaik's work is either unreliable or fringe are untenable. The relevance of the paper to Sand's book is clear enough too: Elhaik repeatedly gives Sand's book as an example of a work supporting the hypothesis that he is investigating. I can't see any reason for Ostrer to be on this page and not Elhaik. Taking them both off would be fine with me, but highlighting one and suppressing the other is a pretty obvious breach of WP:NPOV. Zero^talk 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

User Youngdro2 please imediatly excersise self revert. You have broken 1RR. Elhaik never carried out any genetic study. All his conclusions are based on other geneticists studies, like the studies of Dr Ostrrer.--Tritomex (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear that this article is covered by ARBPIA, though I wouldn't object too much if it was. You need to request an uninvolved administrator to make a determination. As for Elhaik, he did a genetic study by his own claim "We investigate the genetic structure of European Jews, by applying a wide range of analyses" and by common sense. Zero^talk 08:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which I hadn't read and will consider later today. Youngdro2 is however editwarring over a range of articles. As a biography this isn't covered by ARBPIA, but if it turns into something else - and I don't think it should, that might change. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he/she is edit warring. I don't have a higher opinion of the tag-team reverting with weak justifications though. Zero^talk 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article uses Sand as a reference, but that's all. In all but two cases he is used as one of several sources. He is used as a reference for "The question how the Rhineland Hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (e.g., Sand 2009)" and "no Jewish historiography was produced from the time of Josephus Flavius (1st century CE) to the 19th century". I can't see any justification for including this in Sand's biography since he is only using Sand as one of many sources except for 2 trivial incidents. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say two other things. 'Tag-team' is a failure to assume good faith, and I hope you really aren't saying that reverting someone who removed material with the rationale "his article has to include the works of Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin and the December 2012 scholarly article of Eran Elhaik or nothing all apparently some just want Zionist propagandist attacking the Khazar hypothesis here!" is really a bad thing - removing material simply because someone has reverted you about another source is never a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please check the edit times. Probably I wasn't commenting on something that hadn't happened yet. Zero^talk 10:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

User Youngdro2 beyond edit warring on this page is engaged in WP:VAN (vandalism) of the article relating to Genetic studies of Jews, G2 haplogroup,. Introducing daily , suspicious anthropological blogs, unrelated material, removing well sourced material, placing articles to unrelated sections etc despite being warned etc. There are 23 genetic studies all having identical conclusion, so a single article/ analysis telling the opposite can not due to WP:UNDUE made equal or above this.--Tritomex (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Ostrer, so far as I can see we aren't using him directly other than to say his article led to ... - we don't actually use the article to argue against Sand, so what's the problem? Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And I would oppose using the Ostrer paper in this article for anything else because he doesn't mention Sand (just read it). It inspired discussion about Sand which is quite different. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree Dougweller, this kind of edit warring all over Wikipedia by Youngdro2 has to stop.--Tritomex (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller, Elhaik cites Sand's work a total of 12 times in the paper. In discussion of his results he cites Sands work as an example of studies that are in agreement with his findings (See eg page 22: "Our findings are also in agreement with archeological, historical, linguistic, and anthropological studies (Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Sand 2009)"). I don't see any logic in your argument that because he also cites other works as well Sands', Sands work that he cites extensively in the paper is not relevant to the paper. Dlv999 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kopelman et al. 2009; is not a "archeological, historical, linguistic, or anthropological study" it is a genetic study where the authors clearly concluded "four Jewish groups, Ashkenazi, Turkish, Moroccan and Tunisian, were found to share a common origin from the Middle East, with more recent admixture that has resulted in "intermediate placement of the Jewish populations compared to European and Middle Eastern populations". the "most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". Concerning the theory of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi, the authors found no evidence.

[18]--Tritomex (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is not relevant to the points I raised to Douglweller. Please allow the editor to respond to these points. Dlv999 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The section is about Sand's criticism of genetic studies, not about whether those studies support Sand's hypotheses or not. This is a biography, not a discussion on the likelihood of Sand's hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephonius (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As past editors have noted biased editors are trying to prevent DNA tests that support Sand

Apparently the only allowed claims are those of Ostrer! What about Zoossmann-Diskin, Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D., etc?! If they are not included, then Ostrer should be removed as well. Apparently anything supporting Sand is not allowed again! [19] [20] [21] [22] "Tuscans, Italians, and French", and the recent December 2012 acceptance of Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D.'s article by the prestigious Oxford's "Genome Biology and Evolution" supporting the Khazar hypothesis [23] which couldn't possibly be anymore relevant as it is the latest research and supports Sand's thesis heavily. But again apparently Zoossmann-Diskin and Elhaik are not allowed and only critics of Sand like Ostrer (who has been called in to question before [24]) are allowed for some "odd" reason!Youngdro2 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Historylover4 sock

Please stop the personal attacks and edit-warring. This is not an article about the Khazar hypothesis or the Ashkenazi, it is Sand's biography. We have other articles that cover the issues. I've commented in more detail about Elhaik above - his article isn't about Sand as a person. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Zero, could you explain the rationale for the lengthy discussion of a DNA analysis study that casts doubt on Sand's thesis, while at the same time suppressing any discussion of a more recent study that supports the thesis? Dlv999 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about Khazar hypothesis or the Ashkenazi Jews. If you want Dlv999 I can post here all genetic studies done so far and there are 23 (X,Y,Autosomes) which all exclude any scientific base to Khazarian hypothesis. Yet this is unrelated to Shlomo Sand biography.--Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: what is the rationale for the lengthy discussion of a DNA analysis study that casts doubt on Sand's thesis, while at the same time suppressing any discussion of a more recent study that supports the thesis? Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They don't like Elhaik or Zoossmann-Diskin's conclusions (and want to limit mention of Zoossmann-Diskin's studies and now very absurdly block mention of Dr. Eran Elhaik's study which is again in the prestigious journal "Genome Biology and Evolution" now [25]), that seems to be the answer Dlv999! The fact the moderators aren't doing something about this is very disturbing and makes one remember a report from a few years back released by one organization [26]. As for "Tritomex" making his hyperbolic claims as usually about "23 vs. 1" or whatever, this again is a very ridiculous tactic (Zero0000 has responded to his bizarre claim that Elhaik's study supposedly "isn't a study"!) especially in view that Zoossmann-Diskin/Zoossmann-Diskin et al. themselves specifically note what they declare to be the deficiencies of past studies; that is literally a significant point stated openly in his/their studies and papers [27] "Comments on previous studies" section and [28][29]Youngdro2 (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) historylover4 sock

Once again, this is a biography. It isn't an article about the Ahekenazi, DNA, etc and sources need to discuss Sand. You keep ignoring this. And Div999. the same applies to you. This article is not about a thesis, and I've removed more text that doesn't discuss Sand. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should concentrate on the sources that discuss his biography.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, let's get rid of NYT, Science and the Oster paper. The issue here is that we are bringing up the DNA research, but not covering it in a balanced way. Dougweller, your claim does not stack up. The Oster paper mentions neither Sand nor his work, yet it remains in the article, while the the Elhaik paper cites Sand's work 12 times including citing it as an example, among other studies, that agree with his findings.If you look at the NYT and Science articles the only "discussion" of Sand is saying that he said something in his book. This is exactly what Elhaik is saying when he cites Sand's work. Obviously the style and format is different, because we are talking about a scientific research paper, he is not going to write in prose "Historian Shlomo Sand wrote such and such in his book called..." like NYT does, because that is not how research papers are written. If we are going to discuss the DNA studies in this article we should be relying on peer reviewed academic publications, not relying on popular media written by journalists to decide what has been "refuted" or not. Dlv999 (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the source don't discuss sand it should be removed.But maybe you have a point Sand only famous because of the book its classical WP:BLP1E I propose that article about him will be merged in to the book.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I'm dubious about Ostrer as I said, as we don't have a source saying that the paper inspired anything, which is why I added a fact tag. The article doesn't claim that it mentions Sand but that it inspired comments on Sand, an entirely different thing. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing media reaction to an author - where did you get the idea we don't do that? Reception of his work is relevant to his biography. What shouldn't be here is technical discussion of the DNA studies. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a section in the article on DNA analysis, not on "media reaction to the author". It is misleading to present a section that purports to be about DNA analysis, but then editorially claim that it's about media reactions to the author. I think the average reader would expect a section about DNA analysis to give a balanced account of the research related to the author's work. The NYT article is not a "media reaction to the author", it is an article about scientific studies into Jewish genetics. It seems odd to me that we are allowing a media report by a journalist about a scientific topic, because it mentions the author's work, but we are prohibiting research by an expert in the topic, published in a peer reviewed journal, who similarly cites the author's work. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Article goes into far too much detail about the book

Dlv999, thank you for your post about the section on DNA analysis. It made me realise that the focus is on the wrong thing. We have an article on the book already, The Invention of the Jewish People. And we seem to have a 2nd article on the book in Sand's biography. Including the lead, there are about 260 words on him, and over 1400 on his book. All we need in this article is an explanation of what the book is about, a brief statement about its reception and also something about any awards, etc. The meat of the discussion about his book belongs in the book's article. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And noting that the book is under ArbCom sanctions, added the template for this article, remove when we've trimmed the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the articles on Dan Brown, Simcha Jacobovici and Graham Hancock, you can see that their books and documentaries that have their own articles are only briefly mentioned. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And it doesn´t seem very neutral to mention criticism of the book by geneticists without saying that the book attacks the geneticists.     ←   ZScarpia   17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's cut it down to a single short-ish paragraph with no "timeline" and no genetics. Zero^talk 07:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article is dominate by the book section more than his biographical section. I think it is normal to include an introduction of his most famous work, but that any summary of content or criticism of his book belongs in his his book page. Therefore, I will remove the 3 last paragraphs that have more to do with the content of the book and move them to the wikipedia page of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another Historylover4 sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2013

Skapandet av det judiska folket translation in Swedish October 2010 http://www.adlibris.com/se/product.aspx?isbn=9186515160 85.224.107.240 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

Please change "CV on the Tel Aviv University website" NOTES SECTION to http://humanities.tau.ac.il/segel/shlomosa/ - Shlomo Sand' new personal page in Tel Aviv University site.

89.139.24.11 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate sentences

In the Biography section the short second paragraph is virtually a verbatim repetition of the last two sentences of the first paragraph. Someone who's allowed to edit this page could tidy it up. Jjc2002 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Jjc2002

Fixed. Thanks Span (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The results of Elhaik 2012 genetic article has nothing to with Sand biography

Elhaik genetic study is not needed here. Not just because it has been described as incorrect by bigger and more recent genetic study, but because it has nothing directly to do with Sand biography.--Tritomex (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But he does quote genetic studies, and rather then removing a tiny paragraph (that you think is falsely proving his case) I suggest adding one on the newer results. Life and history may prove one day how right and/or wrong he is. Don't you agree? --johayek (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Elhaik uses Sand about 9 times in his article. They subscribe to a very similar thesis. One doesn't erase information because one dislikes it or is laboring under the impression it is dated, disproven or whatever.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"a *controversial* Israeli professor of history"

controversial does not add any information, that is not yet present further below in the article itself. IMHO controversial shall get removed at this very place before too long. --johayek (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

I removed "controversial" from the article, as it is well-poisoning. Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are a hero. Thanks for listening to my request! --johayek (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually Shabazz must be confusing my person with somebody else, as I did not mean to attack anybody. Instead of simply reverting Debresser's contribution, I started a discussion here in order to leave the decision to the community, not particularly to a single quickly decided person like Shabazz. I call my way a consense oriented and rather calm approach, calm not necessarily equaling silent. BTW: I do not know, what Shabazz's profession outside Wikipedia is, but changing somebody else's genuine contribution is called censorship. And I personally do not appreciate it. --johayek (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A neutral and well-sourced reflection of the fact that a person is controversial (in addition to his works) is not well-poisoning. That is writing a good article. The argument that it is already in the article itself, is all the more reason to have it in short in the lead as well, since that is what a lead is for. I'd revert this deletion of neutrally-worded and well-sourced information, if not that I very much respect the editor who removed it. At the same time, I do expect an explanation that takes into account my objections within a reasonable time. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Same for this edit to Land of Israel, although there I can understand a little better why it would be considered well-poisoning. But not in this article, where the subject is Shlomo Sand himself. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The word "controversial" doesn't "summarize ... any prominent controversies" concerning Sand. It doesn't enlighten the reader. I think the right approach is to add a sentence to the lead explaining why Sand is controversial. In my view, using a label doesn't help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even WP:LABEL says that we can use a contentious label, if it is widely used in reliable sources. I think Shlomo Sand fits that description and falls into that category.

Mentioning the fact that Sand is controversial is summarizing the article, and conveys important and relevant information to the reader. Here I disagree with you.

I agree that writing a whole sentence would be more informative. What about: "Sand is the author of several controversial books about the Jewish people and the Land of Israel"?

The problem I have with that proposal, is that the sources call Sand himself controversial, not just his books. Perhaps something like: "Sand has been called controversial, for his points of view about the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, which he brought forth in several controversial books"?

Suggestions will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be within the rules to add "controversial" to the initial sentences, but it isn't good encyclopaedia writing. Actually, any historian in this field who is not "controversial" according to some sources is not doing his/her job. It would be better to note that Sand is involved in certain (named) controversies rather than to attach this useless adjective to his person. Zero^talk 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While WP:LABEL says we can use a contentious label if it is widely used by reliable sources, it says it should be used with in-text attribution. I think it's easier and more helpful for the reader if we just summarize the controversy, as Debresser proposed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rabbi de Bresser reintroduced the word controversial. Looks like he is up for an edit war. To me this looks like another episode in religious scholars fight worldly scientist. This bashing here with innocent words should be stopped. Who agrees to consider this sophisticated vandalism? Doesn't this ask for steps to protect this page even a little more? --johayek (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit was based on this discussion and the many good sources. You are kindly requested to study WP:NPA diligently. Please restrict your arguments to the matter at hand, and do not speculate as to my motives, or other editors will remove your comments. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can read this discussion, in which every editor but you seems to agree that the word "controversial" is not helpful, and come to the conclusion that it belongs in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. If it is sourced, then it should be here. I will post on WP:BLP/N. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion both here and on WP:BLP/N came to the conclusion that we shouldn't just call Sand "controversial". Just for the record, I want to state my opinion, that this person is controversial. So much is clear from the sources and this article itself, which shows quite a few incidents of behavior a less controversial person wouldn't have engaged in. I think it is not a proud moment for Wikipedia when we omit this important fact about Sand. Nevertheless, I can not but abide by consensus.

That same consensus, both here and on WP:BLP/N said that we should add some lines to the lead about the controversies which he is related with. Above I suggested "Sand has been called controversial, for his points of view about the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, which he brought forth in several controversial books"? For unclear reasons, I did not see any clear replies to this suggestion, and I would like to ask for them again. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shlomo Sand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110209141438/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7056435.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7056435.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110209141443/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7074261.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7074261.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"who purportedly converted in the early Middle Ages"

There is documentary evidence of correspondence between the King of the Khazars and Jewish communities elsewhere, which definitively demonstrates that there were Khazars who converted to Judaism in the early Middle Ages. How many converted is up for debate, and it has largely been refuted that they constitute any large portion of Ashkenazim. Furthermore there were Crimean Karaites who claimed that they were the descendants of the Khazars during Tsarist persecutions, though they were not necessarily telling the truth.

I propose changing this to something like, "at least some of whom are known to have converted in the early Middle Ages." פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)