Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Critism in the lead

I have tried to insert the criticizm to the lead to reflect article content properly if I hadn't do it in the right way.Please suggest how the text could be improved.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Something that you should bear in mind is that the historians and geneticists attacking the book are ones whose views or whose work is attacked in the book. You might also like to note that, though having supporters, those historians are attacked by other historians and that the geneticists are attacked by historians, ethnologists and linguists. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is, of course, not to adjudicate who is right, but to present the different viewpoints neutrally.     ←   ZScarpia   22:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course per WP:LEAD all significant criticism should be mentioned.What my sentence is lacking and how it could be improved to properly summarize criticism in the article?--Shrike (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, you want to mention the acclamation the book has received as well, don't you? Perhaps it would be better to just say that the book has been both praised and vilified?     ←   ZScarpia   15:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC) --- for those interested, here's Shlomo Sand talking about the ideas in The Invention of the Jewish People.

It was already said that it was praised in the lead so the current situation is not WP:NPOV.Ok here is my proposal."The book was praised by journalists and by some historians but was criticized by other historians as inaccurate and fringe and by geneticists as goes against recent finding about Jewish genetic history." --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as is: "It has generated a heated controversy." If we start in with weasel words like "some historians" and "other historians", people are going to add {{who}} tags. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Further to Malik's comment, your choice of wording rather implies that there's a general criticism among geneticists of the book, rather than criticism by a couple of teams whose work is itself controversial and which has, in turn, been criticised by Sand. You say that the book is praised in the Lead. The Lead mentions how well the book has sold and that it's been translated into a number of other languages. Is that what you mean by praise?     ←   ZScarpia   16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Youngdro2 - another Historylover4 sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This book is no "The Castle" by Kafka. Why an entire article for a recent book? Shouldn't the material be inserted in a broader entry? --HeloPait (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

DNA Analysis

This material belongs in this section.

In 'The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses' published in the journal, Genome Biology and Evolution, by Oxford University Press, Dr. Eran Elhaik states that Jewish origins begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism. In this study, which is claimed to be based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies, he states that "My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations". According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, it makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.

− − Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European. "[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia, although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.

− − Haaretz approached a number of scholars from Israel and abroad, including historians and geneticists, and asked them for comments on Elhaik's article. According to Haaretz, 'the only scholar who agreed to give his opinion (and did so with great enthusiasm )' was Shlomo Sand, author of the best-seller, "The Invention of the Jewish People,". Sand provided, what Haaretz referred to as 'some tough words of criticism for geneticists looking for Jewish genes.' "For an ignoramus like me, genetics had always appeared to be crowned with a halo - as a precise science that deals with quantitative findings and whose conclusions are irrefutable." When he began reading articles on the subject of the Jews' origin, he found he had been mistaken: "I discovered geneticists - Jewish geneticists - whose knowledge of history ended at what was necessary for their high-school matriculation exams. Which is how I would describe my knowledge of biology. In high school they had learned that there is one Jewish nation, and, on the basis of this historical narrative, they reconstruct their scholarly findings." "Their search for the origin of a common gene in order to characterize a people or a nation is very dangerous," said Sand. With several reservations, he cites the example of the Germans, "who also searched for a common component of blood ties." The historical irony, he emphasizes, is expressed in the fact that "whereas, in the past, anyone who defined the Jews as a race was vilified as an anti-Semite, today anyone who is unprepared to define them as a race is labeled an anti-Semite. "I used to think," Sand adds, "that only in such disciplines as history and literature can facts be given various interpretations, but I then discovered that the same thing is done in genetics. It is very easy to showcase certain findings while marginalizing others and to present your study as scholarly research. In general, specialization in genetics can create an incredibly high level of ignorance in history."

If it is removed on the grounds that it does not relate to the book, then we would need to remove the other material, which is already thete, and which has been used to refute the thesis of the book. After all, if we are going to permit Newsweek, and Michael Balter and Harry Ostrer to be included as the source of claims that the thesis is refuted by DNA analysis, then surely we have to allow SS himself to refer to a study that supports his claim.Do not collect (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit familiar. If someone directly discusses the book, then that can be considered. But using research by authors who simply use it as a source, no. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And you must stop trying to force this in, you have broken 1R today. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question for Dougweller: None of the three mainstream media articles are about Shlomo Sand's Book The Invention of the Jewish People, they are about genetic research on the Jewish people. All three of them mention Sand and his book. Could you explain to me your rationale for saying that the two articles (NYT and Newsweek) that report studies that contradict the main thesis in Sand's book are relevant, but that the article(Haaretz) reporting a study that supports Sand's thesis is not relevant.

Also could you please justify your accusation of 1rr (all I see is an addition of original content (not a revert) then an addition of amended content to address the concerns of the person who deleted the content (possibly a revert). After which the editor came to the talk page. Finally the Elhaik paper cites Shlomo Sand's book in discussion of his results as an example of research that is in agreement with his findings. This is not the same as using the book as a reference, this is how people discuss their findings in scientific papers. Dlv999 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed material on Elhiak on the 18th, he replaced it (reverting me) on the 1st - different words but the same material. he then reverted me less than 24 hours later. I don't think I'm the only Admin who would see that as a violation of 1RR. Just rewording stuff doesn't make it an exception. I'll look at the article again. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's discussing the same Elhaik study, but it is not the same material because it is based a different source: A new Haaretz article published on the 28 December[1] Dlv999 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And just to be sure, which 3 articles are you referring to? Please note again that this is not the place for a discussion of the subject of the book - if that is all they are doing then they shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the NYT article and Newseek article currently cited sources in the the section under discussion, and the new haaretz article published on 28 December [2], which you deleted in your latest revert. Dlv999 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller is correct that there is slightly less than 24 hours between my posts. However I would point out that my second post had the intention of meeting Dg's objection that the material I added was not relevant to the book. I believe that the quote that I added from SS makes this relevant to the book. I was therefore trying to meet Dg's objection. I agree with his point. However, we must be consistent. If we remove the new material, then we need to remove the material by Newsweek, and Michael Balter and Harry Ostrer as well. All of these references use DNA analysis and DNA research to refute SS's claim. They do not directly discuss the book.Do not collect (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

with reference to the newsweek/daily beast article. This article discusses the Khazar thesis, it does not discuss the book. It merely has a link to a review of the book, as an exampe of a 'revival' of this Khazar thesis. The relevant quote is 'The latest DNA volume weighs in on the controversial, centuries-old (and now revived in a 2008 book) claim that European Jews are all the descendants of Khazars, a Turkic group of the north Caucasus......' The NY times article is similarly about the claim that 'Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives.' It again only refers to SS's book where it states ' They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times.' Ths reference is not directly about the book. Michael Balter's article is again about the claims that these DNA studies 'shows a genetic connection among all Jews, despite widespread migrations and intermarriage with non-Jews.' It refers to both Arthur Koestler snd SS as examples of authors of books reffering to the Khazar thesis. Therefore the whole of this section would need to be removed if we follow Dg's suggestion. Do not collect (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is inconsistent to remove the Elhaik article, while leaving others discussing (and rejecting) DNA evidence. In fact, I think that the entire section is redundant here; it is not about Sand's book, but about scientific debates on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews.

I wonder whether all of the people editing here have actually read, let alone understood, this book. It is not about the origins of European Jews; it is about how historians have discussed and presented this. For Sand, what is important is not whether the Khazar theses is true or false; it is whether Zionist ideology and Israeli state needs have altered the way historians have examined and presented this. So even a complete vindication, or a complete refutation, of the Khazar thesis would have no bearing on the validity of Sand's book and his analysis. I think that this entire, overlong, section should be removed. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How can it possibly be the case that studies that show that the Jews are not a cohesive group with traceable descent from a population that migrated out of the Middle East, or that they indeed are such a group, would have no bearing on Sand's thesis that they are not, and that nonetheless some Israeli historians say they are? This seems like sophistry to me.StN (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Because that is not Sand's thesis. His argument is that the Khazar thesis was originally accepted by most Jewish historians, but that the ideological and propaganda needs of the state of Israel dictated a rewriting of Jewish history. This is a work of historiography, not of history; his interest is how people conceive and write of their (real or imagined) past, not in the actual events of that past. So, as I say, neither a complete vindicate, nor a complete refutation, of the Khazar thesis would affect the validity of the book.

This is from the publisher's website:

"Exploding the myth that there was a forced Jewish exile in the first century at the hands of the Romans, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues that most modern Jews descend from converts, whose native lands were scattered across the Middle East and Eastern Europe."

I have read the book and this is an accurate characterization. I haven't read Sand's more recent book "The Invention of the Land of Israel," but it looks to me that that one fits your description (i.e., that it is mainly a historiographical work) much better than it does TIJP. StN (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to look, but I agree with RolandR. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To Dougweller: as you confess you "have not had a chance to look", may I ask what exactly are you agreeing with?

Regarding this whole subsection: certain editors have allowed DNA research material that has been interpreted to go against the thesis of Sand's book to remain in this article for the last couple of years. The recent attempts to keep out research that supports it does therefore appear to be an inconsistent application of wiki policy and a form of possible systematic bias. To resolve that bias by removing the new DNA research altogether seems to me rather heavy-handed and could even be viewed as a form of censorship. "The modern Israeli state was founded on belief in a 'Jewish people' as a unified nation, established in biblical times, scattered by Rome, stranded in exile for 2,000 years, then returned to the Promised Land. But according to Sand there was no exile, and as he seeks to prove by dense forensic archaeological and historical analysis, it is meaningless to talk today about a 'people of Israel'. At least not if by that you mean the Jews."[3] Therefore, modern DNA research that lends support to this thesis of Prof Sand's book (which I own and have read incidentally) and which specifically mentions Sand's book, seems quite crucial information to an evaluation of his book. So I do NOT agree with Roland if I have understood him correctly. Can anyone else who agrees with him explain what is the rationale for how removing this subsection entirely helps a wiki reader be better informed about this book.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mystic, I agree with you that it would be inconsistent to allow the DNA analysis section to remain as it is, with only some academic views represented. However, if all the material is removed, then perhaps it could go elsewhere? See this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazars i added the new material there, and it is still there at the moment, but has been challenged as WP:UNDUE. Perhaps the DNA analysis section should be removed from this article, and the discussion continued at the Khazar artcle? RegardsDo not collect (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a big difference between understanding the book and a debate about some of the issues it contains. This is not an appropriate article for a discussion about Jewish genetics, etc. The censorship suggestion is a bit tiresome as it is made so frequently when someone is told that for some reason something doesn't belong in a particular article. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But as the article stands we have a "DNA Analysis" section, but there seems to be a bias in what material is being allowed into that section. Specifically why are the NYT and Newseek articles being allowed as sources but the Haaretz article was deleted? Dlv999 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If the section is to remain, there is no justification for removing the Elhaik reference. It would be better to remove the entire DNA section; but we certainly can't keep it in this slanted, partial form. RolandR (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To Doug: I don't really understand why its considered "tiresome" to discuss the impartial and consistent application of wiki policy. That is precisely what the talk pages are for. Perhaps "tiresome" if this requires holding up our own viewpoint and application of wiki policy to scrutiny. You now write that this is "not an appropriate article for a discussion about Jewish genetics", and yet for two years you appear not to have objected when sources pointed to research that did not support Sand's book. So why the change of heart now if this is not bias and censorship. Sand himself, in the preface to the paperback edition of his book, argues that: “After exhausting all the historical arguments, several critics have seized on genetics. The same people who maintain that the Zionists never referred to a race conclude their argument by evoking a common Jewish gene. Their thinking can be summed up as follows: ‘We are not a pure race, but we are a race just the same.’ ... As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will.” As Prof. Sand himself alludes to objections based on genetic science in his book — especially where it concerns the role of conversion in the spread of Judaism — I still don't see how it is not appropriate to this article? Which is where we came in, when Do not collect wrote: "surely we have to allow SS himself to refer to a study that supports his claim."

To Roland and Dlv999: I agree with what has been written by Dlv999, that the issue is about correcting the bias, not eliminating useful and relevant information. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To Do not collect: Just to be clear, I would like the subsection to remain here. It think it very relevant to the book that there is a controversy about genetic research and how it relates to Sand's thesis. I think it also releavnt to the Khazar page and should be referenced at both articles.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As Roland perceptively noted, Sand's book is not so much propositive of a theory, as deconstructive of theories about a people. The most invaluable part of the book consists of a perfectly normal historian's history, i.e., of the socio-ideological forces influencing the construction of a modern collective Jewish identity. In this I am reminded of Martin Bernal. His propositive theory, which however took up far more space than Sand dedicates to the Khazars, was almost self-evidently silly. But his analysis in volume 1 of the modern historiography of ancient Greece as that was influenced by racial theory, is still regarded as a tour de force. One doesn't throw the baby out with the barfwater. As to genetics, Sand himself deals with that pp.273ff., and in so far as RS reviews challenge him on this, they cannot be excluded, even if, it's just a personal view, many of those reviews are incompetent and show a lack of familiarity with the book. The criterion should be, genetic criticism or evaluation of Sand should be admitted if Sand's book is specifically targeted or mentioned by those papers, and ignored if not. What should not happen is the application of a double-standard.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Its precisely the "application of a double-standard" which I understood was the point of this thread from Do not collect, which I am also seeing and take issue with. If we leave aside the proposal to remove the subsection on DNA research, we have a consensus of the following editors for allowing the inclusion of the Elhaik reference : myself Mystichumwipe, you Nishidani, RolandR, Do not collect and Dlv999 against the lone voice of the administrator Dougweller. (Did I miss anyone?) That's 5:1 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your not correct me, Tritomex and No More Mr Nice Guy has objected the inclusion of this paper in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The section has nothing whatever to do with the book. It's a WP:COATRACK, and should be removed in its entirety. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of scholarly reviews [4] that should be included instead this coat rack--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

• The DNA analysis section has been in the article since June 2010. Perhaps editors could explain why this section was not a considered a coatrack for the last 2 and a half years when it only contained sources discrediting the book, but now suddenly it is a coatrack when we have additional sources that give a another viewpoint. Dlv999 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Because those articles are explicitly about the book not about some genetic research that mention the book in passing.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, that is not true. The Newsweek[5] and NYT[6] articles that have been in since 2010 are articles about studies into Jewish genetics that mention Shlomo Sand and his book in passing (in fact the Newsweek article does not even mention sand or his book by name it merely links to the book's web page). Dlv999 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Then those should be removed together with Elhiak work.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But don't you find it interesting that they have been in since 2010 and only now that there are RS publishing an alternate viewpoint we have a concerted effort to remove the whole section? Dlv999 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support the inclusion of the Elhaik material. It is very important info related to the topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the book "The Invention of the Jewish People" not about Elhaik paper, nor about Shlomo Sand personal interpretation of population genetic science. With the comments of No More Mr Nice Guy, Shrike, Dougweller and myself there is clearly no consensus for the inclusion of this paper in this article. If Elhaik paper is included, all genetic studies regarding this issue by WP:NPOV should be included. --Tritomex (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NMMNG has not commented in this discussion, he made one comment in a prior discussion about a sock, but not on the content issue. Dougweller and shrike have both conceded that it is not consistent to include the material cited to NYT and Newsweek articles, but delete the material cited to Haaretz as you did in your latest edit. So from what I can see there is zero support for your latest edit, which is also inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Than per which policy you want to exclude this, which I guess is the case:

1.Analysis of Jewish genomes refutes the Khazar claim. [7]

2. New York Times [8]

3. Scientific journals [9]

4. Population genetic academic books [10] and 5. [11]

6. Jewish DNA [12]

7. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich p 275

8. Jews having common genetic origin [13]

9. Hebrew university genetic database [14]

10-[15]

11. Nature magazine [16]

or clasical genetic studies:

[17]

• Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene

flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

• [18]

• [19]

• Nebla and all

"It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture.In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews.. " [20]

• Anna C Need and al

"Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks."

• Shen and al

"A 2004 study by Shen et al. compared the Y-DNA and DNA-mt Samaritans of 12 men with those of 158 men who were not Samaritans, divided between 6 Jewish populations (Ashkenazi origin, Moroccan, Libyan, Ethiopian, Iraqi and Yemeni) and 2 non-Jewish populations from Israel (Druze and Arab). The study concludes that significant similarities exist between paternal lines of Jews and Samaritans, but the maternal lines differ between the two populations. The pair-wise genetic distances (Fst) between 11 populations from AMOVA applied to the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial data. For the Y-chromosome, all Jewish groups, except for the Ethiopians, are closely related to each other. They do not differ significantly from Samaritans (0.041) and Druze (0.033), but are different from Palestinians (0.163), Africans (0.219), and Europeans (0.111). Nevertheless, the data in this study indicated that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their geographical neighbors, the Palestinians."

• Naama M. Kopelman and all

"We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry...Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, the most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population".

• Faerman

"Ashkenazi Jews represent the largest Jewish community and traditionally trace their origin to the ancient Hebrews who lived in the Holy Land over 3000 years ago. Ashkenazi Jews are among the groups most intensively studied by population geneticists. Here, main genetic findings and their implications to the history of Ashkenazim are presented reflecting in a way major developments in population genetics as a discipline. Altogether, Ashkenazi Jews appear as a relatively homogenous population which has retained its identity despite nearly 2000 years of isolation and is closely related to other Jewish communities tracing their common origin to the Middle East."

• Hammer and all 2009 [21]

In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood"

• Haplotype VIII of the Y chromosome is the ancestral haplotype in Jews.

Lucotte G, David F, Berriche S. Source

International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. Abstract

DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with the Y-chromosome-specific DNA probes p49f and p49a to screen for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and haplotypes. Two haplotypes (VII and VIII) are the most widespread, representing about 50% of the total number of haplotypes in Jews. The major haplotype in Oriental Jews is haplotype VIII (85.1%); haplotype VIII is also the major haplotype in the Djerban Jews (77.5%) (Djerban Jews represent probably one of the oldest Jewish communities). Together these results confirm that haplotype VIII is the ancestral haplotype in Jews."

• Behar and al 2006 [22]

"Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry"

• L Hao and all

"...The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry"

• [23]

The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for making a human — and shows that the Jewish groups share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships. Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East. From there, groups of Jews moved to other parts of the world in migrations collectively known as the Diaspora.

• Atzmon and all.

The study compared these Jewish groups with 1043 unrelated individuals from 52 world-wide populations. To further examine the relationship between Jewish communities and European populations 2407 European subjects were assigned and divided into 10 groups based on geographic region of their origin. This study confirmed previous findings of shared Middle Eastern origin of major Jewish groups and found that "the genetic connections between the Jewish populations became evident from the frequent IBD across these Jewish groups (63% of all shared segments). Jewish populations shared more and longer segments with one another than with non-Jewish populations, highlighting the commonality of Jewish origin. Among pairs of populations ordered by total sharing, 12 out of the top 20 were pairs of Jewish populations, and none of the top 30 paired a Jewish population with a non-Jewish one" "Each Jewish group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture from host population, while the split between Middle Eastern and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, occurred 100–150 generations ago, as "compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago" as the Jewish community in Iraq and Iran were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires during and after Babylonian exile. The main difference between Iraqi, Iranian and Ashkenazi Jews was the absence of south European component in this Middle Eastern Jewish groups. This study found that genetic dates "are incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs" Citing Behar, Atzmon states that "Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in all Jewish populations based on non overlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years"

• Behar and all 2010

"The results shows that most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster with common genetic origin, that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations..."The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant." In conclusion the authors are stating that the genetic results are concordant "with the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"

• Priya Moorjani and al 2011

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39], [40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC

• Cambell and all 2012

"North African Jews are more closely related to Jews from other parts of the world than they are to most of their non-Jewish neighbors in North Africa, a study has found. North African Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to Each Other and to European and Middle Eastern Jewish Groups. SNP data were generated for 509 unrelated individuals (60.5% female) from the 15 Jewish populations (Table 1). These SNP data were merged with selected datasets from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) to examine the genetic structure of Jewish populations in both global and regional contexts (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The first two principal components of worldwide populations showed that the North African Jewish populations clustered with the European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups and European non-Jewish groups, but not with the North African non-Jewish groups, suggesting origins distinctive from the latter... The relationships of the Jewish communities were outlined further by the IBD sharing across populations [Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Tables S1 (lower triangle) and S4], because the Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations."

All of this studies were done using standard procedures, classical methods, with huge covering in secondary sources, If you want to include Elhaik paper which is not classical genetic study and goes in opposite to all findings from population genetics, did not went through (per absolute majority) even on Wikipedia fringe theory noticeboard, than all classical genetic studies telling the opposite from Elhaik fringe theory (in genetic science) have to be per WP:NPOV included. If you promote Elhaik paper, which lacks any standard of classical genetic study used in this science to unique position of inclusion to this article, than you can not exclude reliable genetic studies. It does not mean that genetic science results belong to this article, but that self declared rules can not exclude them by WP:NPOV, if this non standard paper is included. Consensus does not mean the numbers of those pro and contra. --Tritomex (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the book "The Invention of the Jewish People" not about Elhaik paper, nor about Shlomo Sand personal interpretation of population genetic science.'Tritomex

Proof that you haven't read the book, and therefore have not the foggiest idea of what the subject of this page is. Sand explicitly discusses the politics of genetic studies, on pages 272-280, and therefore this must be mentioned on a page dedicated to that book's contents. By the way, someone should keep track of the way you repeatedly spam talk pages with the same edit (the list of studies). I read it once, months back, and so must have everyone else. Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Nishadani but I have red the book.--Tritomex (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Your propositions have huge leaps in logic and are contradictory.

This is an article about the book "The Invention of the Jewish People"

This article is not about . . .Shlomo Sand('s) personal interpretation of population genetics

"The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand however contains several pages on the use of population genetics.

You argue that while this article should deal with Sand's book, it should avoid all mention of what he writes on pages pp.272-280. Why?

I.e. if you have read the book, read those pages and explain how an article on a book must not cover certain contents of that book. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No I do not argue that. However Elhaik "genetic study" paper is not on page 272-280, nor are Shlomo Sand interviews to Haaretz about genetic science.This has nothing to do with the book.--Tritomex (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw geneticists have also replied DIRECTLY to this book " The studies came up with very similar results: Jews from the three Diaspora groups were closer to each other genetically than to non-Jews from the same geographic region...Overall, these results confirm the common wisdom that Jews have always held, that they stem from a common Middle Eastern origin and heritage, says historian Anita Shapira, also from Tel Aviv University. “It is nice to get support from modern genetics, which refutes Sand’s assertions,"From science magazine: [24]--Tritomex (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To Tritomex,walls of text are not helpful. Can you instead please explain why DNA anaylisis results have been considered relevant to this page for over two years? And can you please explain why we can NOT use a source which mention Prof. Sand's book, and which details how Elhaik's research supports Sand's thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why DNA anaylisis results haven't been considered relevant until now, but I know that they are relevant to this book.Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source which links the Elhaik study to the topic of this article [25] Dlv999 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that Elhaik interview claim is contradictory to his article where he described Ashkenazi Jews as having Caucasian or Khazarian origin, which Elhaik considers to be equal and describe AJ : "a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries" ... "Because Caucasus populations remained relatively isolated in the Caucasus region and because there are no records of Caucasus populations mass-migrating to Eastern and Central Europe prior to the fall of Khazaria these findings imply a shared origin for European Jews and Caucasus populations." also this is contradictory to his pre published article where he claimed that the European contribution to Ashkenazi Jews mainly derives from East Europe- So how now all Jews become Western European? Again and independent from this enormous contradiction, what is the link between Elhaik and this book? Also by WP:NPOV, if Elhaik has place here, all genetic studies and academic sources on this subject have place here as well. --Tritomex (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the source doesn't belong here its only mention the topic of the article in passing so clearly inclusion of it its WP:UNDUE

Tritomex over numerous pages has consistently shown a profound confusion between his personal reading on the subjects, and WP policy on editing.I am absolutely indifferent to the truth or falsity of claims. I can do that with Ostrer easily - in his interviews he contradicts in some what he says in others. So what? If Elhaik uses Sand's book, secondary sources connect the two, and Sand is asked to comment on Elhaik's paper because the latter's paper supports contentions he made in his own book, then those interviewed remarks are perfectly quotable since they constitute Sands' responses to criticism of his book. Well, several people have noted this problematical behaviour, Blinksternet and AndytheGrump among them, and despite Shrike's automatic support, I am beginning to think some administrative review is needed.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What more troubling that you promoting the same edits like the banned socks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you should retract that insinuation. I've been here 6 years, and no one yet has ever said I tagteam with socks. You on the other hand, Shrike, have a long history of automatically reverting me, almost immediately, whenever I revert a POV/WP:OR pusher, which Tritomex happens to be, unfortunately.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's ignore the activity of socks and concentrate on sources and Wikipedia policy. I have asked on numerous occasions in this discussion why passing mention of the book in the New York Times article and a link to the book in the Newseek article (with no actula mention of the book) in the Newsweek article warrant inclusion. But mentions of the book in the Haaretz article and now the GBE article are deleted from the article.

No one has been able to justify this, so as far as I am concerned there is no justification for the inclusion of the NYT and NW article but removal of Haaretz and GBE. Your edit is not supported by the discussion here among good faith editors and it is not consistent with the encyclopedias core policy of WP:NPOV Dlv999 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The scarce mention of the book in the the Haaretz article doesn't justify 2 paragraphs in our article per WP:UNDUE moreover the book isn't discussed at all is only used as mean to introduce Sand himself. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not an adequate reply to the gravamen of Dvl's point which is that both you and Tritomex are employing double standards, including adversary criticism on an author while scrounging through policy for grounds to exclude anything that might support his position. Elhaik by the way is a personal friend of Sand's and is thanked for his help on the acknowledgement page of his new book The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland, Verso, 2012 p.283 (which is however more relevant to the Shlomo Sand page) if noteworthy.

Your note also means that you didn't notice that, after refraining for months while watching this article, I finally edited that one section of the two down today (WP:Undue, precisely). Tritomex's blanket revert didn't allow me to do the same with the Elhaik introd.para, which is problematical. Neither you nor he consider the merits of what other editors are endeavouring to do. You just remove text, and use misleading edit summaries in doing so. It's POV pushing. And please stop turning up on pages after me to support someone by reverting me.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, I would like a straight answer to to a question regarding your recent edits. Why did you add the Newsweek source which does not mention the book Invention of the Jewish people or its Author Shlomo Sand by name (only linking to the book's web page), and delete the Haaretz and GBE articles both which mention the book and cite Sand's opinion, claiming that the mentions of the book were not significant enough for inclusion? Do you have an explanation for the different sourcing standards you are applying to viewpoints on each side of this issue? Dlv999 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple I was undoing edit by blatant sock that was shortly blocked--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering WP:UNDUE, it was stated by Shrike not by me. I pointed out clearly that Elhaik paper has nothing to do with this book and as far as there is no consensus to present genetic studies and academic books regarding this subject here, per WP:NPOV Elhaik paper can not be made an exception. Many genetic studies deals with this question, yet they are not included. Regarding "long history of blank revert," you Nishadani have a long history of doing this among others to me as well, while your repeated accusations against myself for POV pushing indeed reflects your own edits and reverts. Weather Elhaik and Sand are friends is also irrelevant to this book. Considering Dlv999 legitimate concerns, the New York times article, is a direct criticism of this book, while this is not the case with Shlomo Sand personal interviews about genetic science, totally unrelated to this book or Elhaik paper which has again nothing to do with this book beyond using Sand as one of references.--Tritomex (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If Elhaik is included , Atzmon, Ostrer, Hammer, Nebla, Shen, Molutsky, Behar and other should be included per WP:NPOV:--Tritomex (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone checked this edit: "In 'The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses' published in the journal, Genome Biology and Evolution, by Oxford University Press, Dr. Eran Elhaik, claims to present a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies. He states that "My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations". According to his study’s findings, European Jews genome is mostly Western European."

However nowhere in his analysis Elhaik claims that European Jews genome is "Western European" [26] in contrary, he claims that they are not Western European--Tritomex (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, this place is crazy, seething with impatience. I thought I'd revise both sections today. The easiest thing to do was to cut back that inordinately long quote from Sand. I did that. I then had visitors, and when I came back to find a revert war was up, I could per IR no longer touch the fucking article and fix the first paragraph, whose autonomous value as includable has me in doubt. I was thinking along the lines it should be reduced to one line, a note to the effect that Elhaik used Sand, and placed under the second para, but that was difficult.

Why don't we all just calm down, and manage to appreciate that for any substantial edit, several hours, a day, can go by pondering, without any harm done? Had I be allowed to do what I wanted to do, I would have been suggesting a reasonable compromise both for your and Shrike's objections.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be protected without the inclusion of disputed edit?--Tritomex (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for an RfC

Wouldn't this be the best way to go forward now? Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. But editors should use policy coherently. Keeping stuff you like in while erasing stuff you dislike on whatever grounds breaks WP:NPOV. I think anything not written by historians on a book written by an historian should be keep out, which means the whole section should go, however. Geneticists are inept on history, and historians have no autonomous authority on genetics. And journalists who think they're clever enough to weigh in should be viewed with caution-Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Dougweller.I do not think that any WP:RS covering directly this book should be excluded.--Tritomex (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Gentlemen, this is getting farcical. One can't even add obviously useful edits to the page. I was thinking of adding these to the 'other reviews' section.

(a)

Joseph Croitoru, writing for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, argues that Sand conveys at times the impression that he has personally deconstructed a myth whereas, in the third chapter, to cite one example, his dismissal of an expulsion of Jews by the Romans as a myth is built almost entirely on the work of the Israeli historian of Judaism, Israel Jacob Yuval.refJoseph Croitoru, 'Treu in allen Ländern der Zerstreuung,' in FAZ, 20 January, 2011: 'Sand lässt im Folgenden den Eindruck entstehen, dass die Widerlegung der Behauptung, die Juden seien von den Römern kollektiv vertrieben worden, weitgehend sein Verdienst ist. Dass dies in Wahrheit als Erster der israelische Judaist Israel Jacob Yuval schon 1999 auf einer Fachtagung in Israel unternommen hat, unterschlägt er. Yuval wird zwar erwähnt, doch eher beiläufig, obgleich um seine These herum Sand das gesamte dritte Buchkapitel baut, ohne dass dem Leser deutlich wird, wer ihr eigentlicher Urheber ist.'./ref

(b)

Moshé Machover found the book an 'exemplary exercise in debunking a particular nationalist myth', though rather inelegantly written in its original Hebrew, and containing little that is new. He finds Sand's accusations against recent Israeli historians incorrect or exaggerated, but argues that 'these historians have made no special effort to disabuse the Israeli hoi polloi and Zionists abroad of the naive belief in the scientifically discredited narrative'.refMoshé Machover, Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution, Haymarket Books, 2012 pp.257-260./ref

Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

I stopped at the uniformly anti-book avalanche in the reception section. Ghetto-izing the pro-book stuff into 'other reviews' is an obvious POV move. And then there's the material on this talk page about preventing the pro-book DNA research ... Haberstr (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific and give examples of texts you think aren't neutral in the article. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Shouldn't this article be in the category Category:Antisemitic publications? Jewish ethnicity denial is obviously anti-Semitic and is a common tactic used by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.49.127 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Added it now. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You should certainly wait before adding such controversial categories. Especially when an admin reverted the comment above, which indicate a problem, then you reverting him. There is of course a problem with saying that believers of a religion, Muslims in this case, have a "common tactic" to deny Jewish ethnicity. The category you added also say "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic". --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that the "common tactic used by communists and Muslims" statement isn't problematic. However I do acknowledge that as the anonymous user wrote, Jewish ethnicity denial is a form of antisemitism. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111, please read WP:DENY. You restored a comment by a repeatedly blocked IP-hopping troll. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I never knew this IP was blocked, as it doesn't appear when you go to its "contributions" section. I think that user made a good and relevant point, which is why I brought it back and would like to hear others' opinion about. Anyway, I just reworded the last sentence to make it sound better. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories do not exist so that you can express an opinion that you aren't allowed to put into the body of an article. What you suggest would be a severe violation of WP:BLP and there is no chance it would be allowed. Forgetting it is your best option. Zero^talk 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)