Talk:Shlomo Sand

The thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author of the source in question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin and other Communist anti-Zionist ideologues

An important Communist leader, I.V.Stalin expressed his rather similar opinions about the non-existence of a unique Jewish nation or people in his capital work "Marxism and the National Problem".Cpt.schoener (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.211.207 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nation and Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would I deny what I take pride in?

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

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

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

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

Where are the refs?

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

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

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

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

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

3 wp:rs requests

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

• category:New Historians
• communist
• anti-zionist

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

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

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

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

I share Nuvde analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

What is written exactly here ?

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

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

Malcom,

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

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

So, please, could provide :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support your actions.

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

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

Political opinion section ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN/I

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

Query

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

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

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

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

Primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malcolm I'm afraid you are simply wrong here -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Conspiracy theories

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

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

This also sounds too much like wp:soap.

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

ref needed

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

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

deleted sentence

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

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

Last update - 00:00 21/03/2008

Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani

Tags: Palestinians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inventing the Diaspora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Degree of perversion'

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

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

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

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

Is there no justification for this fear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Irrelevant" link

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

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

Another bio overwhelmed by irrelevant criticism

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

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

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

Attack on this article

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

Section "Refutation by DNA Analysis"

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

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

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

Can be viewed in Google cache:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So where exactly is my analysis in the edit? What extra conclusion have I added? It is a straightforward description of a relevant piece of peer-reviewed work. I look forward to a more convincing explanation, otherwise I will continue to assume this is about censorship./

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

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

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

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

WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH

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