Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People

the paper of Elhaik

Might those who are revert-warring over Elhaik's paper like to discuss it here instead? Elhaik's paper is available for free here.

My comments: Genome Biology and Evolution is one of the most prestigious and appropriate scientific journals for this type of study, so claims that Elhaik's work is either unreliable or fringe are untenable. The relevance of the paper to Sand's book is clear enough too: Elhaik repeatedly gives Sand's book as an example of a work supporting the hypothesis that he is investigating. Those are the only objections that I can see from edit summaries, and both are insufficient. On the other hand, Youngdro2's text has some problems (eg. the word "recent" and the "Ph.D.") that need to be fixed. Zero^talk 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the fact that the person introducing this text is an obvious sock of a banned user? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am no sock of a banned user, but I do agree with Zero user on this subject. Elhaik's paper is a scientific analysis of many prior genomic studies on Jewish ancestry and does carry a lot of weight in any discussion about the validity or invalidity of Shlomo Sand's claims in his book. The failing to fully explain the major findings of that study while at the same time mentioning previous genomic findings and their implications is biased and it is an obvious misuse of Wikipedia standards. It does not matter if the study mentions Shlomo's book or not. What matters is that those findings may constitute a scientific validation or refutation of Shlomo's claims in the book. That is what makes necessary to explain those results in a more detailed way (it is not necessary to explain it all, just the basics of his findings about Jewish genetic origins). What worries me even more is that besides this article, in which Dr. Elhaik's paper is at least mentioned, there is an absolute failing of explaining his findings in the articles about Jewish ancestry, but that is another matter entirely. --JjTirado (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be so; I'm pretty useless at identifying socks. I'm more concerned with article quality. Zero^talk 08:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Elhaik does not carried out any genetic study, he wrote an article and analysis which has opposite conclusions than all genetic studies carried out in this subject. The exclusion of this article/contra all genetic studies is WP:UNDUE question

User Youngdro2 who violated 1RR on this page, many times is repeating exactly the same words and sentences in the exactly same places as did user Historylover4--Tritomex (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) He is also engaged in obvious vandalization of Genetic studies on Jews in the same way as Historylover4 did--Tritomex (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Elhaik did a genetic study by his own claim "We investigate the genetic structure of European Jews, by applying a wide range of analyses" and by common sense. Zero^talk 08:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem it doesn't mention the book in any way so it clearly doesn't belong here--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The book is cited twelve times in the paper. Dlv999 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it used as reference but the book is not discussed in the paper.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. The author cites the book as an example of studies that are in agreement with his findings. See e.g. pg 22: "Our findings are also in agreement with archeological, historical, linguistic, and anthropological studies (Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Sand 2009)". Dlv999 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All of this studies were done before this genetic analysis and all came to absolute opposite conclusions than this article-analyisis. Of course "Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975;" are not genetic studies. As I said on Genetic studies talk page; This is not a genetic study, this is a genetic analysis. There are hundreds of articles and analysis in numerous genetic journals, widely cited genetic books like for example The Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA By Tony Nick Frudakis (see page 383) which are also not mentioned by this article. It would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to select the single article whose conclusions are in collisions with all genetic studies on Jews (even in collision with the results of study whose samples Elhaik used-Behar used 100K loci in oreder to avoid selective interpretations,) without a single exception and presenting at as equal to other regular genetic studies involving hundreds sometimes thousands of participants, detailed sampling, loci determination etc.--Tritomex (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd. Elhaik did a substantial genetic study on precisely the right topic and published it in a peer-reviewed journal. The claim that other people came to different conclusions from the same information is false. In fact all the studies including this one studied only limited aspects of the raw data and did only limited analysis of it. Elhaik studied different aspects and came to a different conclusion. It might be refuted by future studies, but that's how science works. Meanwhile, the fact that you don't like it has no relevance. Zero^talk 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Using the same data, Behar’s team published in 2010 a paper concluding that most contemporary Jews around the world and some non-Jewish populations from the Levant, or Eastern Mediterranean, are closely related. Elhaik used some of the same statistical tests as Behar and others, but he chose different comparisons. Elhaik compared “genetic signatures” found in Jewish populations with those of modern-day Armenians and Georgians, which he uses as a stand-in for the long-extinct Khazarians because they live in the same area as the medieval state. “It’s an unrealistic premise,” said University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer, one of Behar’s co-authors, of Elhaik’s paper. Hammer notes that Armenians have Middle Eastern roots, which, he says, is why they appeared to be genetically related to Ashkenazi Jews in Elhaik’s study.

Hammer, who also co-wrote the first paper that showed modern-day Kohanim are descended from a single male ancestor, calls Elhaik and other Khazarian Hypothesis proponents “outlier folks… who have a minority view that’s not supported scientifically. I think the arguments they make are pretty weak and stretching what we know.'

Using the same data, Behar’s team published in 2010 a paper concluding that most contemporary Jews around the world and some non-Jewish populations from the Levant, or Eastern Mediterranean, are closely related.

Elhaik used some of the same statistical tests as Behar and others, but he chose different comparisons. Elhaik compared “genetic signatures” found in Jewish populations with those of modern-day Armenians and Georgians, which he uses as a stand-in for the long-extinct Khazarians because they live in the same area as the medieval state.

“It’s an unrealistic premise,” said University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer, one of Behar’s co-authors, of Elhaik’s paper. Hammer notes that Armenians have Middle Eastern roots, which, he says, is why they appeared to be genetically related to Ashkenazi Jews in Elhaik’s study.

Hammer, who also co-wrote the first paper that showed modern-day Kohanim are descended from a single male ancestor, calls Elhaik and other Khazarian Hypothesis proponents “outlier folks… who have a minority view that’s not supported scientifically. I think the arguments they make are pretty weak and stretching what we know.”

Feldman, director of Stanford’s Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, echoes Hammer. “If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin,” he said. He added that Elhaik’s paper “is sort of a one-off.”

Elhaik’s statistical analysis would not pass muster with most contemporary scholars, Feldman said: “He appears to be applying the statistics in a way that gives him different results from what everybody else has obtained from essentially similar data." 72.48.252.105 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The link to Elhaik's page is broken. It should be removed. Besides, while the paper may be relevant, Elhaik's page is not. The article should not be about promoting individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephonius (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 October 2014 (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)

Removal of Sand criticism

Bennett Greenspan is the founder and president of Family Tree DNA. He is not geneticists, yet he is a public figure whose criticism of Sand book was reported by reliable secondary sources. I do not see why his criticism of Sand book has been removed, if reliable sources reported on this issue. Being a geneticist is not a requirement for being notable. --Tritomex (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would say that he clearly has no idea what Sand's actually argued in his book, so, as Zero said in the summary given for reverting you, your addition was just 'noise'. A comment of my own: I think you'll find that the "general Middle East" referred to by Greenspan extends right across Iran and the Caucuses, which is an added reason why what Greenspan said is worthless as a comment on the book. And bear in mind that every 'non-African' has some degree of 'Middle-Eastern' ancestry.     ←   ZScarpia   19:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that he "has no idea what Sand's actually argued in his book"? Sand is also not expert on Jewish history, even less to genetics, although he wrote on this subject.Greenspan is specifically referring to Sand book, I do not know if he is right or not, but he is a notable person whose criticism was reported by relaible sources and there was no reason fro ZeroOOO to remove the criticism of Sand.Tritomex (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Being 'notable' isn't relevant - what matters is whether Greenspan is qualified to comment on the subject of this article. And incidentally, even if he were qualified, we don't quote people without citing the source the quotation came from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the book The Invention of the Jewish People, a historiographic book about the writing of the history of the Jewish people, including Ashkenazi Jews, about whose origins it contrasts what various writers have written. On those, it certainly makes no claims that Ashkenazi Jews have no Middle Eastern component to their ancestry. You'll notice that Greenspan doesn't mention the book itself, the subject of this article, but, even he did, there would be no point in mentioning him except as an example of the host of critics who have misrepresented it.     ←   ZScarpia   13:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Greenspan directly refers to this book "Greenspan was referring to the controversial book written by Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, which asserts that the Jews of today did not originate in this part of the world and that a “nation-race” of Jews never existed. Most of today’s Jews, he argues in “The Invention of the Jewish People” (2008), are the descendants of people who lived elsewhere in the world and were converted to Judaism. " [1] The source is Haaretz. --Tritomex (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well, you have a Haaretz article saying that Greenspan was referring to The Invention of the Jewish People and then going on to make claims about the contents of the book. However, those claims are untrue and, if you were to insist on including material about Greenspan, what that would mean is that I would then go on, in the article, to show that what the author of the Haaretz piece wrote is bollocks. The cost in article space and my time involved in demonstrating the straw man created by Greenspan and Haaretz would be a waste at the end of the day. As to the question of where the DNA inherited from modern day Jews originated, the impression I have is that is that, in the case of Ashkenazi Jews in any case, admixtures from all over the place make a major contribution, in contradiction to what your Haaretz article seems to be arguing. On genetic research, the article refers only to Harry Ostrer, who has a fair number of critics. If I remember rightly, reasons for that include the adoption of the Eastward Migration theory of Ashkenazi Jewish origins as an article of faith in Ostrer's research and the manner in which other possible explanations were eschewed in favour of the "bottleneck" and "demographic miracle."     ←   ZScarpia   18:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The content added by Tritomex and deleted by Zero was not cited to any source. There are statements made there which the Haaretz article supplied above does not verify. What Greenspan himself said did not accurately reflect what Sand argues in the The Invention of the Jewish People. The Haaretz article claims: "[the book] asserts that the Jews of today did not originate in this part of the world and that a “nation-race” of Jews never existed." There is obviously a difference between stating that the ancestors of today's Jews came from a wide variety of locations including the Middle East and saying that modern Jews have no genetic connection to the Middle East. As to the concept of a "nation-race", I wonder how many of those there are. The article goes on: "Most of today’s Jews, he argues in 'The Invention of the Jewish People' (2008), are the descendants of people who lived elsewhere in the world and were converted to Judaism." I would have to re-read parts of the book to find out exactly what Sand wrote, but, again, there is a difference between saying what Haaretz claims Sand wrote and that many or most of the ancestors of modern Jews came from outside the Middle East. The Haaretz article mentions Harry Ostrer. Something of interest in a paper released by Ostrer's team was a statement that, due to proselytisation, 10% of the population of the Roman Empire, at some point, was Jewish. I would say that, if true, that would rather confirm claims that Ashkenazi Jews tend to originate outside the Middle East.     ←   ZScarpia   00:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont know based on which source you assert that Ostrer has a lot of critics in population genetics as I never had such impression, however most importantly I do not see why this is related to the specific comments made about this book by Greenspan. If Sand, or any other notable sources replied or discredited what Greenspan said, than why not, WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of such reply. I never objected anything similar.
It was asserted that Greenspan made his comments out of business interests, I do not see any prove for such claim. As Sand specifically refesr in his book on population genetic studies, some of them carried out with he help of this major genetic institution, I do not see valid reason for the exclusion of the comments made by the director of this institution which specifically and categorically refer to Sand book. I do not assert that this comments are correct or not, but they are connected to subject, they come from reliable source and from notable person.--Tritomex (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, notability has precisely zero significance when it comes to assessing the validity of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So what makes significance in asserting the validity of source? The source is Haartez, used many times in this article and considered maximally simpathetic towards Sand. or the question is Greenspan formal education? Than this whole article should not have existed as Sand is not an expert of Jewish history even less to Jewish genetics about which he wrote extensively in his book and commented in same Haaretz. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this criticism.--Tritomex (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please reread the content of the comments above. If you have a problem in construing the English sentences, by all means drop me a note and I will provide a paraphrase.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sand wrote 'extensively' about Jewish genetics in his book? Could you quantify that in terms of the proportion of chapters or pages?     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sand fully devoted pages 272-280. to his interpretation of Jewish population genetic studies. He also mention this studies on other places too. In this article whole section was also allocated to Sand elaboration of Jewish population genetics.--Tritomex (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That is another misrepresentation of Sand, typical of the continuing misreading and misrepresentation of the entire book. On those pages, Sand is not writing about "Jewisg genetics" (a term which, I imagine, he would totally reject). This chapter, The Scientific Puppet and the Racist Hunchback is, like the rest of his book, a study of the literature on the subject, and in particular of the scientific controversies on this issue since the establishment of the state of Israel. Sand is not putting himself forward as an expert on genetics, and not offering his own analysis of the scientific evidence. He is, as a historian of ideas, examining the differing theses put forward and the social and political contexts in which they are located. The various scientific theories advanced as "refuting" Sand do no such thing, though they may challenge the interpretations advanced by some of the researchers Sand studies. Until people understand what Sand's bok is actually about, it is difficult to agree on what should be included in this article. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

indeed... apparently, people for some reason began to discuss the question of "Jewish genetics" in a section on this page, where this is completely off topic. This is an article about a specific book, and even under "reception" it cannot be the article's aim to list each and every mention, even in passing, of this book in the popular press,

there is a page on "Jewish genetics", and it is at Genetic studies of Jewish origins. People interested in that can go over there and knock themselves out. The "Khazar" thing in particular even has its own sub-page, Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry. To make a debate on the possible contribution of Khazar/Turkic populations to the Ashkenazi gene pool (a question that will obviously not have a yes-or-no answer, but at best an answer in the form of a percentage figure) about Sand or his book is a red herring. If you want to discuss the book published in 2009, for whatever reason, do it here. If you want to argue the status of the "Khazar" question based on recent (post-2009) studies, obviously the book has nothing to say on that, and the article to do it is the "Khazar" one. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Roland, and in general that this should not be transformed into a discussion on Jewish genetics. Tritomex used to be all over these articles asserting that some 'scientific consensus' established the Levantine origins via genetics, and that's where the rot set in. This should not obscure the fact that on pp.191-245 of his 2009 book, a very large chapter, Sand did weigh in heavily on the Khazar hypothesis, and was favourably disposed towards it. Elhaik, who himself came to the idea via Koestler's 1976 popular work, in his 2012 study used Sand, from memory, 8 or 9 times to footnote his general remarks. In that sense, noting Elhaik's study is quite proper, and I disagree with its removal. It was, in part, intended to buttress Sand's argument in that chapter, and is directly linked to it. That said, I agree with Dbachman that rather than use this and other contiguous pages to do battle on Jewish origins, editors who have a dogmatic fixation and feel obliged to cram every page touching on these hypotheses with the scientific papers putatively rebutting these ideas, should concentrate on those linked pages, and keep controversial elaborations short and sweet.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Rationale

Shlomo Sand - The Invention of the Land of Israel, From Holy Land to Homeland, 2012, pp.27-31: "In 2008, I published the Hebrew edition of my book The Invention of the Jewish People, a theoretical endeavor to deconstruct the historical supermythos of the Jews as a wandering people in exile. The book was translated into twenty languages and reviewed by numerous hostile Zionist critics. In one review, the British historian Simon Schama maintained that the book “fails to sever the remembered connection between the ancestral land and Jewish experience.” Initially, I must admit, I was surprised by the insinuation that this had been my intention. Yet when many more scholars repeated the assertion that my goal had been to undermine the Jews’ right to their ancient homeland, I realized that Schama’s claim was a significant and symptomatic precursor to the broader attack on my work. ... I must begin, however, by clarifying that The Invention of the Jewish People addressed neither Jewish ties nor Jewish rights to the ancestral Jewish “homeland,” even if its content had direct implications for the subject. My aim in writing it had been mainly to use historical and historiographical sources to question the ethnocentric and ahistorical concept of essentialism and the role it has played in past and present definitions of Judaism and Jewish identity. Although it is widely evident that the Jews are not a pure race, many people — Judeophobes and Zionists in particular — still tend to espouse the incorrect and misleading view that most Jews belong to an ancient race-based people, an eternal “ethnos” who found places of residence among other peoples and, at a decisive stage in history, when their host societies cast them out, began to return to their ancestral land. ... In attempting to do so, my previous book employed one basic working premise: that a human unit of pluralistic origin, whose members are united by a common fabric devoid of any secular cultural component—a unit that can be joined, even by an atheist, not by forging a linguistic or cultural connection with its members but solely through religious conversion—cannot under any criteria be considered a people or an ethnic group (the latter is a concept that flourished in academic circles after the bankruptcy of the term “race”)."     ←   ZScarpia   16:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)