Talk:Harry Ostrer

Untitled

Assistance with expansion always appreciated. Just Google "Ostrer Jewish" to find information. Thanks, --Andrew Goldsweig 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ostrer.jpg

Image:Ostrer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

timeline

The article states that "Ostrer contends that the Jewish people descend from a Middle Eastern tribe that coalesced approximately 2500 years ago, a time in accordance with biblical accounts of Jewish origins" This is pretty silly, as the torah is not set 2500 years ago but is supposed to be much older. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All sources in criticism section are reliable

Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik [1]. Respected independent journalist Shmarya Rosenberg; Rosenberg's news article is simply quoting an original article at The Forward newspaper in this specific ("disputed") link [2] (a story that was also picked up by such places as HuffPo as well [3]). Also quoted is well known professional Catherine DeAngelis. All the sources are reliable, and if we use the "argument" being advanced by the person removing this information we must also remove the other links (he wants to keep) that are an old Haaretz newspaper link and an old Jon Entine article in The Forward newspaper as well: because they are not "peer-reviewed journals". This user cannot simply pick and choose which newspaper articles he likes and wants to include here!Vikingsfan8 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

171.64.198.79 is vandalizing this page and removing content without reason. He removes sources, and claims "they are not peer-reviewed journals"; but "strangely" doesn't think the other newspaper articles (such as that of Entine) should be removed.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh and Dr. Elhaik's paper [4] (upon which the news story in The Forward once again linked here by a respected and oft-quoted independent journalist [5], quoting Catherine DeAngelis and others, is based on) is peer-reviewed [6]Vikingsfan8 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Shmarya Rosenberg "his scoops posted on FailedMessiah.com are cited by the The Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, PR Week and other media,[2] and his press releases are occasionally cited and relied upon in the mainstream and non-Orthodox Jewish press"Vikingsfan8 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Dr. Eran Elhaik. This is the new line of supposed "argument" coming from the user "171.65.249.4". If he claims that valid news sources (he apparently just doesn't like) can supposedly be removed because "they are not peer-reviewed journals" then he himself must also remove two other links here. That would be the links to the older Haaretz newspaper article (before Elhaik's debunking of Ostrer) and the other older "Forward" newspaper article by the very suspect Jon Entine (who likes to try to play "geneticist", dispute only having a BA in philosophy and a "fellowship" in journalism. Along with "accolades" like having once "directed" the Miss America Pageant for NBC). Neither of these older newspaper articles are from peer-reviewed journals, so going by the logic of the user "171.65.249.4" they must be removed also!Vikingsfan8 (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User "171.65.249.4" is still attempting to remove valid, sourced, academic links. This user's only past argument has been that the newspaper articles (that mention Dr. Elhaik's study challenging all of Ostrer's suspicious past work; that was built on ludicrous and hilarious claims of supposed "demographic miracles" and a complete refusal to share his supposed "data" as Catherine DeAngelis clearly noted) are "not peer-reviewed journals". Neither are either of the Jon Entine articles which are from Haaretz newspaper and the Forward newspaper. Apparently consistency is something else "171.65.249.4" is not very good at.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"171.65.249.4" still has not responded at all.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Shmarya Rosenberg is a valid source

Shmarya Rosenberg is a respected independent journalist, whose blog site is cited often by many mainstream news websites. Thus his article, quoting the Forward article in question, is a totally valid source and it specifically is challenging Ostrer with its' very title [7]. Making it something that should definitely be cited among criticisms of Ostrer. If stuff written by Jon Entine can be cited in this article, then Rosenberg certainly can be as well.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether Shmarya Rosenberg is respected, independent or journalist is irrelevant here. He is only taking somebody else's story, misinterpreting what is said, and quoting incorrectly. A blog about something else cannot be taken as the source for a Wikipedia page when that something else still exists. When Shmarya Rosenberg can produce recordings of HIS interview with DeAngelis we can discuss the validity of the quote.

Again "171.65.249.4" you are ridiculous. "Shmarya Rosenberg and his scoops posted on FailedMessiah.com are cited by the The Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, PR Week and other media". Rosenberg has every bit as much right to be quoted here as Jon Entine does, that is for sure! Care to explain how Rosenberg is supposedly "misinterpreting" anything from the Forward article in question? He merely quotes a segment of the article, specifically the portion with the Forward themselves providing the quote from Dr. DeAngelis. You have no case.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

FailedMessiah.com. is not reliable source, it is a self published blog. She is a blogger and not reliable source regarding population geneticists and population genetic science.--Tritomex (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think blogs can be reliable sources if they are a blog run by a notable expert in some field. Tthe name "failed messiah" sounds point of viewish. Bad choice of name but still. I think he is a notable source but . . . is seen as a crank by regular media. More so that Osterer anyway. Popish Plot (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)