Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 7 March 2010

Jewish history C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

History and historiography

I haven't yet read the book; I'm waiting for the English translation, due out later this year. But, from what I have read, the main controversy appears to be not over Sand's history — his account and analysis of the Jewish past — but rather his historiography — his account of how this hiostory was written and rewritten to meet a political agends. I'm trying to find the review in which a leading Israeli historian states that no-one dispures his factual historical account, but more his inerpretation of the work of historians. Can anyone else recall this review?

In any case, I think this article does not yet distinguish clearly enough between these two aspects, and I will attempt later to improve this. RolandR (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No the critics point out the two: his facts are wrong and his interpretation of the work of historians is wrong also. Benjil (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is that both the Khazar Theory and refutation of the Khazar Theory or other theory declaring that today's Ashkenazi descend from converts are false when presented as absolutes. To state that the Jews of today are not descended from the biblical Jews is like an Anglo claiming that Mexicans dare not call themselves Hispanic. There may be Middle Eastern sub-communities among the gentile believers who have as undiluted descent from Biblical Jews as do the Ashkenazi but they would not be focused on it. Descendants of the bible's Jews intermarried with descendants of converts and remained selectively aware of their religion and culture. new commenter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.109.36 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the Jews exiled?

The current version says:

"Sand's argument is that the people who were the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to what is accepted history, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt"

But it's not at all clear that this is "accepted history". For example, the article by Anita Shapira -- harshly critical of Sand's book (pdf linked by the article at the end) -- says the following about the exile:

"...Sand erects a phantom – exile – and “proves” that it never happened, something historians do not deny. On the other hand, he ignores the fact that even if Jews were not exiled from their land, and many of them did scatter all over the Roman Empire of their own free will, the very loss of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel, the Romans’ change of its name to Palestine out of a desire to erase all trace of Jews from it, and the establishment of an idolatrous Roman colony on the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was crushed, went down in Jewish collective memory as traumatic. This is true even if the Jewish community in the land of Israel, particularly in Galilee, did continue to flourish, at least until Christianity became predominant in the Roman Empire in the fourth century."

So even Sand's harshest critic is admitting that the exile "never happened". To be sure, she argues the loss of sovereignty, etc, is equally severe. But it hardly seems accurate to say that the accepted history is that the original Jews were exiled as the article currently does. 00:35, 12 October 2009 User:67.241.33.11

There was an exile, following the Bar Kochba Revolt (the 3rd main Jewish rebellion), under Hadrian (135 c.e.). When the rebellion was finally quashed, Jerusalem was ploughed up with a yoke of oxen and rededicated as the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina (and Judaea renamed Syria-Palaestina), and repeopled with a colony with foreigners. Many Jews were sold into slavery. No Jew was allowed to reside in Jerusalem or even approach its environs, except once a year to mourn. Under Antoninus Pius (138-161), Hadrian's laws were repealed, and the active persecution against the Jews came to an end. However, Jerusalem remained effectively off limits. Jewish life in the region had shifted from Judea proper to the Galilee.

It is well known that during the Roman period, the majority of Jews lived outside of Judaea, and were to be found in many parts of the Roman empire. There are many peoples whose population in the homeland is far outnumbered by the population in diaspora. People moved for a variety of reasons, but Sand is wrong to suppose that the Jews living outside Judaea were primarily descended from converts. Judaea was one of the most impoverished provincial backwaters of the Roman empire. It is not hard to understand why some Jews would have preferred to live in the prosperous, cultured commercial hub of Alexandria, where they were favored under the Ptolemies.

Sand also underestimated the contribution of the orginal Jewish exile (the Babylonian Captivity) to the growth of the Jewish diaspora.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Why I can agree that the book causes some controversy (Haaretz note), describing is as (adjective) controversial in the very entry is not in agreement with Misplaced Pages's style policy (WP:NPOV).

I will rephrase it to include a second sentence that reads: "the book is considered to be controversial by some Israeli media" (and the Haaretz footnote). This phrasing is much more in agreement with the NPOV Wikistyle.

--Sugaar (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this been reverted? I see it again: the article says that the book is controversial, citing only a short article in Haaretz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.173 (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only a poorly written book, but full of errors and fabrications.

Just one example that comes to mind is Sand's contention that the word "Israelite" was coined by French and German scholars in recent centuries. The word "Israelite" has been used in English language Bibles for hundreds of years, and before that in Jerome's Vulgate and the writings of the Church fathers, and before that in the New Testament, and before that in the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, i.e. the Septuagint (3rd century b.c.) The word Israelite, which is in Greek form, is used to translate the Hebrew word 'Israeli' in the Hebrew Bible, meaning exactly the same thing: a descendant of the tribes, or children, of Israel.

It seems Shlomo Sand went fishing for information to support his bogus theory and caught in his net just about everything, except for the facts. The fact that Tom Segev endorsed his book and claims that "it is generally well written" is only indicative of the fact that he shares the same views. Otherwise, the book does not have a scholarly feel about it, but rather reads as a frantic polemic.

The final nail in the coffin of Sand's thesis is, of course, genetic research which has effectively rubbished the Khazar theory and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jews from Ashkenazi and Sephardic/Mizrachi backgrounds are far more related to one another genetically than to the the peoples of the host nations in which they live, and could not be primarily descended from converts.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just one correction: the word "ישראלי" ("Israeli", "Israelite") does not appear even once in the Hebrew bible. So the argument above is fatally flawed. RolandR 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, RolandR, I checked my sources before I posted my arguments, though obviously you did not. The statement you wrote is, as you say, fatally flawed, as is the central thesis of Shlomo Sand, whose ideological bias has clearly hampered his access to and analysis of the facts.

The fact is that the Hebrew word "ישראלי" ("Yisraeli") and the feminine form "ישראלית"("Yisraelith"), translated as "Israelite", do indeed appear in the Hebrew: Lev 24:10 (3x), Lev 24:11, 2 Sam 17:25.

Then, there a number of occasions where the word "Israel" has been used to mean the people Israel, and has thus been translated as "Israelite(s)", e.g. Exo 9:7, Lev 23:42, Jos 3:17, Jos 8:24, Jos 13:6, Jos 13:13, Jud 20:21, 1 Sam 2:14, 1 Sam 13:20, 1 Sam 14:21, 1 Sam 25:1, 1 Sam 29:1, 2 Sam 4:1, 2 Ki 3:24, 2 Ki 7:13, 1 Chr 9:2, Num 25:14.

Then, of course, there are the countless other occasions where "Israel" is clearly used to mean the people Israel, e.g. children of Israel, tribes of Israel, etc...including עָם יִשְׂרָאֵל ("Am Yisrael"), the "people of Israel", e.g. 1 Kings 16:21.

This is not to say that the Biblical concept of Israelites is the same as the modern concept of Israelis, i.e. the citizens of the modern State of Israel. However, the Bible clearly refers to a physical people/nation, of Israel/Israelites, as well as to "Yehudim" (Judeans/Jews) - not simply to the followers of a particular religion... and so Shlomo Sand's central thesis that the concept of a "Jewish people" is a modern-day invention is baseless. Perhaps Sand, in the grander design of his loftier goals and ideals, would like to wish away the concept of Jewish peoplehood, but that is entirely another matter.

Jacob Davidson

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Roland, here are the links for you should you wish to see usage of the word:

• Leviticus 24:10
• Leviticus 24:11
• 2 Samuel 17:25

-- Avi (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Khazars

I cannot believe that absolutely no one - at least until now- dared to call a spade a spade so to speak! (i.e. mention the taboo word Khazar in the article!) Why are you all so afraid of it? Sand's book revolves around this issue and yet you all somehow managed to avoid mentioning it. Where is the spirit of fair play and common sense so much invoked as something wikipedia must obey??? Absence by omission equals ...manipulation! Sorry, wikipedia is about NOT being biased!

So I had to come round and do it! Yes. Shlomo's book is pretty much about the Khazars and Wall Street Journal does not hesitate to mention it (see reference I inserted)

Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the citation, and brought a bit more of the Financial Times article so as not to unintentionally misrepresent Schama's opinions about Sand. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Allright then! Fair enough... Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Schama's review looks like an attack job, long on rhetoric, short on substance. A television presenter might say "His book is a trip (and I use the word advisedly) through a landscape of illusions which Sand aims to explode, leaving the scenery freer for a Middle East built, as he supposes, from the hard bricks of truth" but it's seriously rude from one historian to another. Oh, wait a moment, he's an art historian. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Schama, you may wish to read it. Schama specialized in various historical disciplines, including British history, Jewish history, French history, and art history. Sand, on the other hand, seems to have only studied film and French history. Seems pretty clear who has the better handle on Jewish history . -- Avi (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sand specialised in intellectual and cultural history; and part of his argument is that the entire discipline of "Jewish history", separate from other history, is designed to produce answers congenial to those who believe in the existence of a single and genetically linked "Jewish people". It pays to read the book too, Avi, even if you don't agree with it. RolandR 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Sand has no experience from whence to write his book; I am saying that I believe Schama to have the better grasp of Jewish history. Regardless, this is becoming a discussion about Sand and Schama, not this article, and is so out of scope of this talk page. We can carry on the discussion via e-mail if you wish, Roland. -- Avi (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Schama may know something about Eastern Europe but his comments read like someone ideologically opposed to uncovering historical truth and determined to raise the temperature. Sands ripost here is mild and scholarly and semms damning indeed - "Schama is the only historian who claims that the Kingdom of Khazaria converted to Judaism in the 10th century and not in the 8th." I wonder which admins here really want articles undermined by giving WP:UNDUE prominence to the rabid, concealing the real nature of the debate? Yes, sorry, my job takes me all over the country. Registering only gets me treated like User:Epycwin, falsely accused of antisemitism and with 5 admins prepared to further accuse him of the same before his name was sort of cleared. Guess what, an editor who had started two good articles won't be back. While User:Okedem is free to wreak havoc. 92.27.122.197 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about both Schama and other wikipedia editors are out of scope on this talk page. Please follow up with the other editors directly or follow dispute resolution procedures. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference clean up

Using a (relatively) new property of {{reflist}} (the |refs= parameter), I've moved the references out of the main text into the refence section itself. This way, the text is cleaner as all references in the text are named pointers to the reflist, where the templates are stored. The reader should notice absolutely no difference. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest: BBC interviews Shlomo Sand

See

Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation?

Why all but one evaluations cited are negative? Are there no more positive evaluations? Why are only Israeli historians cited? It seems that the section evaluation is very one sided and has not much to do with evaluation of the book. I would attempt to change it, but I am afraid that any changes I make will be reversed. Please attempt to make the evaluation section to be more of an evaluation than an arena for Sand's critics in Israel:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q="The+Invention+of+the+Jewish+People" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.173 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree , I think public figures like noam chomsky and figures from the islamic world have read the book and gave it praise as well as other less political scholary figures . Shiftadot (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

criticism

It's not hard to find serious criticism drawn on this controversial (yes, it certainly is) book by many noteable genetics and historians. Some of them blankly called it a fraud. However, nothing about that is mentioned in the opening sections which is praises only. Hence, I had no other option but to add the POV tag on the top of the article. The tag will be removed after the article will became unbiased (Random sources that criticized Sand: , --Gilisa (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Open section

I added a bit of the criticism on Sand's book and on Sand's himself into the opening section-in a manner that is in line with facts and with neutrality requirments. My edits were reverted by RonaldR with his argument is that the source I gave is not a reliable one/biased one. No problem. if you want-ask for new source, don't delete.--Gilisa (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, Gilisa. Please read WP:BLP: "Remove any contentious material which is unsourced; which is a conjectural interpretation of the source; or which relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability."

You can't add personal attacks against the book's author without (a) attributing opinions to their source ("According to John, Harry smells.") and (b) having reliable sources to begin with.

The lede already says the book is controversial. I'm not sure that it needs to go into the controversy in detail, but if it does, it should do so in an unbiased manner and must follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's how it work-praises and applauses are extensively refered in the open section, to give reader the impresion that this is not a controversial book, and if it's -it's a serious one of its kind and not pure charlatanism. The section which should called "reception and critique" is named only "reception" and commentor on Sand's book whose POV is well known and relevant don't have it to be added in one or two exact words next to his name because he's wikilinked-that's all escaping the controversy around the book. Soory, but it doesnt seem the right subject to use WK:BLP-creationist scientists are criticised heavily in the open section of the articles on their name, while they live, because of the way they work. I add no ad hominom attack on Sand, let's acknowldge this. I wrote what was repetedly mentioned in many sources (and I will add few in the near future): a. he is not proffessor or expert of Jewish history and it's highly unacceptable for academic to write out of his expertise. b. he misstreated historical sources, again-examples are not rare. c. he blantently and publicly abrogated dozens of studies in human genetics contradicting heavily with his assertions (who seem to many Jews as anti semitism-no problem to source that as well)-blaming the scientist for having political agende behind their results and on the quality of their work.....All of this while he have no slightes knowledge, understanding or training in genetics (or simply, this is charlatanism). So, if you see my critics as hardly legible-it's not my problem.--Gilisa (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the first paragraph, the article says: The book is considered controversial by some. I personally think the statement should be stronger—it's my view that most people consider the book controversial—but you're not right when you say that the opening section only praises the book.

As I wrote, if you want to write about the reception of the book in that section (called the lede or lead section), you've got to use solid sources, you've got to attribute opinions, and you've got to do so in an unbiased fashion (meaning that you can't summarize all the bad things people say and put them in the lede and ignore the good things people say). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, While I consider this book pseudo historical-I was unbiased in my writing, meaning that calling spad a spad is never biased. I wrote in short what is the critique on Sand's work and on Sand's protection on it: a. he lanuched personal attacks on real scientists in a field that is far from any known expertise of him. b. he didn't handl well historical sources. As I see it, all the "good things" are already within the lead-and in any case, no reason for way these two principles of the critique are not there in short one or two sentences. What's more that you delted what I add next to the name of Tom Segev-instead of just "historian", which leave him as unbiased commentor, I rewrite it as "the new historian"-i.e., from the very same small group that Sand is part of. You decided, on your own, that the wikilink is enough-and it isn't-so don't accuse me for being biased -I think that it's you who should to reconsider this sepcific issue again.--Gilisa (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My changes

I'll just go through my changes here, since I get the feeling that they are likely to be reverted and I'll end up justifying them on here anyway. I don't think they need too much explanation; most are just common sense.

1. I structured the reception section so that positive/negative/neutral reviews were grouped together. The unstructured section was a mess and difficult to navigate.

2. I added a number of positive reviews to balance the reception section, which was overwhelmingly weighted towards negative reviews.

3. I moved some interview materal from this section to the section describing Sand's argument since that is the appropriate location for Sand's explanations of his argument.

4. I corrected Hasting's review summary by adding quotes that correctly represent his views, which are not entirely negative as the previous summary suggested.

5. I removed a second paragraph describing the views of Israel Bartal. Focusing on a single reviewer for two paragraphs is undue weight and should only be done if there is a vvery good reason.

6. I added a section on the reaction of the Jewish community which has been mentioned in many articles about the book and is quite notable.

7. I removed a sentences that inappropriately reported that a reviewer had "deconstructed" the book which is a subjective opinion. I also fixed some weasel words. Factsontheground (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

8. You have no authority to make mass changes, in biased manner, with out discussing first.--Gilisa (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has the authority to make mass changes, if they are supported by Misplaced Pages's policies. Please point out which of the changes is "biased" and violates . Factsontheground (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User Factsontheground last edits

Please revert a.s.a.p the edits of the above mentioned user at least on the reseption section-he removed all critice done based on genetical evidence, which totaly in contradiction with Sand thesis and are the very solid evidence one can expect. If this is unbiased edit, I don't know what biased is. Not to mention that he orderd it in a very strange manner--Gilisa (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is simply untrue, Gilisa. The article still retains the following section (which is the only part that mentions "genetics"):

Hastings continues, saying "It is possible to accept his view that there is no common genetic link either between the world’s Jews or to the ancient tribes of Israel, while also trusting the evidence of one’s own senses that there are remarkable common Jewish characteristics — indeed, a Jewish genius — that cannot be explained merely by religion."

Please read the new version of the article before continuing to revert my changes. Factsontheground (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles