Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 25 January 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Thirteenth Tribe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books 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 This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

One by one (and this makes THE THIRTEENTH HEADING for me)

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

External Links

An external link was added to The Thirteenth Tribe book which I found on www.archive.org thus making the book available to everyone for download in the adobe acrobat PDF format. http://www.archive.org/details/ThirteenthTribeTheKhazarEmpireAndItsHeritage is the source. Putting aside its controversial and questionable nature it is a very interesting read and might help to make a better article if more of the editors who edit this page read the book. Machn (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion completely to ref. of Shlomo Sand?

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

addition in answer to Avraham's reason for the recent edit. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has previously been suggested here, the 'controversy' section appears to be neither balanced or unbiased. Thus the importance of at least one reference to a positive view of Koestler's work to achieve more balance and neutrality. E.g. the academically researched and (in some quarters) well-received book by Prof. Sand which supports Koestler's thesis in this book 'The 13th Tribe', WP:IRS I.e. "making sure that all... significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered"Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, among other issues raised above, I'm concerned that the material you're adding doesn't actually seem to directly discuss the book The Thirteenth Tribe, which is the subject of this article. Can you quote where it mentions The Thirteenth Tribe? If it doesn't mention it, then adding it would be WP:NOR. Jayjg 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically WP:SYNTH; even if true, still a violation. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And Avi, I would welcome your reply when you have time, to my point-by-point reply to your previous comment to me, about the inclusion of journalist's and unspecified commentators opinions, etc., etc. In the absence of that I am regretably starting to feel there are very serious impartiality issues regarding the content and editing of this article.Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't specifically mention the book itself should be removed, whether positive or negative. Jayjg 03:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you want to use material, you must ensure that it is directly related to the topic of the article. If you want to use Sand, then you must at least use the material where he directly discusses Koestler or The Thirteenth Tribe. Jayjg 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

suggestions for improvements and amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Finally a general comment: there are parts of the article as it stands where negative assessments of the book come from commentators who appear to identify themselves with the subject matter of the book's thesis. Yet that conflict of interest and any resulting bias or judgement impairment is not referenced or alluded to. I would like to see that alluded to in someway, by way of small re-writing--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your points in order:

1. If it can't be sourced, it should be deleted.
2. The source in question perfectly complies with WP:V; it is a reliable secondary source, specifically discussing Koestler's thesis as outlined in The Thirteenth Tribe. It should not be removed, it's one of the few policy-compliant sentences in the whole article.
3. The source is clearly provided, Michael Barkun, Religion and the racist right: the origins of the Christian Identity movement, pp. 144-145. It is a reliable secondary source, specifically discussing Koestler's thesis as outlined in The Thirteenth Tribe. It should not be removed, as it's also one of the few policy-compliant sentences in the whole article.
4. The sources do not refer directly to the book or Koestler's theory as expressed in it. Lewis and Fein should be removed. The next source, however, does directly (if briefly) discuss Koestler's theories as expounded in the book.
5. This should be re-written to more closely match the source.
6. Feel free to expand, but first find the reliable secondary sources that discuss it.
7. Accusing reliable secondary sources of bias, or trying to discredit them because of they allegedly "identify themselves with the subject matter of the book's thesis" is the worst combination of poisoning the well and original research. Misplaced Pages does not allow this.

And finally, if you do remove any material, please make sure you remove all the material you have also added that is not directly about the book, or Koestler's thesis as outlined in the book. Jayjg 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

- - - -

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

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

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

Well, you've done exactly the opposite what I've suggested, so I've had to clean up this mess. Responding to your points

2) On the referenced page, 144, Barkun starts by stating "The Khazar theory received reinforcement from an unexpected quarter with the publication in 1976 of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe." It then goes on to discuss the book, the theory as espoused in it, and the uses made of it. In addition, the quote itself, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago…is irrelevant to modern Israel" is a direct quote from The Thirteenth Tribe!!. It is fairly amazing that you could claim that his book "DOES NOT cover nor address this". Your removal of this material was at best completely inappropriate; do not remove it again.

3) See sentence above. On these pages of his book, Barkun directly discusses Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, and his theories in them.

4) I don't understand your point, and in any event Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please discuss your edits in the future, rather than edit-warring in non-policy-compliant material, and editing out policy-compliant material. Jayjg 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Impartiality of the administrator?

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

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

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

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

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

--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that 3½ years ago. What of it? This article still must comply with WP:NOR, which means all sources must refer directly to the book or Koestler's views as expressed in the book. Jayjg 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also my question to you remains unanswered: "do you think that you can justly and impartially apply wiki policy to this subject matter, if you hold the above view which is neither neutral nor impartial. I now believe that you cannot and wonder what you advise?"Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Points 2 and 3 above come from a book that, in fact, directly discusses the Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, and his thesis. Point 2 also, in fact, contains a direct quote from The Thirteenth Tribe, so it is astonishing that you would claim it does not "refer directly to ...Koestler's views as expressed in the book". My statements and edits all fully comply with policy. You have consistently rejected the views and advice of experienced editors and administrators here. Please stop doing so, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Influence in the Arab World

In the section on the book's influence, I don't see the connection between the sentence on the the book's influence in the Arab World and the statement about "the fever swamps of the white nationalist movement". Are you saying these two attitudes are motivated by the same sentiment? The second one is racist; the first is purely political. Imagine some famous writer posits the theory in a highly popular book that modern Palestinians, for example, are not descended from ancient Palestinians. That, I think, would be very popular in Israel. It has nothing to do with racism. It's anti-Zionist, for sure, but not anti-Jewish. So I find the placement of these two statements together rather disingenuous. They should be separated, or at least their different premises made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.57.227 (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything is being implied by having two sentences on essentially the same subject in one paragraph. As for motivations, we really can't say what they are; perhaps political, perhaps race-related, perhaps both, perhaps other. People are complex, and state things for many reasons. Jayjg 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• Book articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles