Talk:Bostanai

recent additions

recently (09:35, January 7, 2008) 89.138.192.76 (talk · contribs) added the following paragraph

According to Rabbi Sherira Gaon quoted in History of the Jewish People Vol. 2 ISBN: 0-89906-475-2, this legend is a myth perpetuated by Bostanai to claim leadership over the other families from David. He could easily clame such as he had a [lineage document] of himself father from son all the way back to David.

It was removed by Jeffmichaud (talk · contribs) with the message "rv anon's- WP:CS is not accounted for, and the lineage cited is not WP:V". While the formatting clearly has to be corrected, I am unclear why it was removed. Even if the website is not a reliable source the book clearly is. Jon513 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also realized I was a bit ambiguous. When I say "He could easily" I mean that Rabbi Sherira could easily claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.192.76 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So the second sentence does not have direct relevance to the article? Would you mind if it were removed? Jon513 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead remove it. I just did some research, it seems R' Sherira said it in " Iggereth Rav Sherira Gaon", where he discusses the lineage of each of the leaders in the Geonic period. I haven't managed to dig up a copy in English yet. 89.138.192.76 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And the point being, you only need one person to show how they're from the davidic line and not from Bustonai to disprove the legend, and he mentions many such people. 89.138.192.76 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is great, the reference does not need to be in English to cite it. But there is a difference between him saying that there are other of the davidic lines and calling Bostanai a lier trying "to claim leadership over the other families". Jon513 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but he also said that aside from there being other davidic lines, that Bostanai, or perhaps his family told the Caliph at the time some story about how all the other lines were killed out and how his is the only one left, so the Caliph would approve him as leader over the guy fighting against him at the time. This is where the legend comes from. The book I mentioned builds on R' Sherira quotes with other historical info they gathered, such as which factions were fighting in Bostanai's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.192.76 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, be bold and add it. Use <ref>sources here</ref> to add references and add {{reflist}} at the end of the article where the reference will be displayed. If you want the reference to look nice you can also use a citation template. Don't worry about it being perfect, if you mess up, I or someone else will correct it. Jon513 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went for it. Tell me if it's good, or fix it up or whatever. I just hope we can avoid an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.192.76 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is "Iggereth Rav Sherira Gaon" a very short work or does there need to be more specification in the citation? Jon513 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The original was in Arabic and described the families of many of the rabbis from the Mishneh down to his time. There's an English translation http://mysefer.com/product.asp?P_ID=2560&strPageHistory=search which is a bit over 100 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.192.76 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found something interesting.

He was the descendant, both on his father's and his mother's side, of prominent families, several members of which had occupied the gaonate. One of his ancestors was Rabbah b. Abuha, who himself belonged to the family of the exilarch. Sherira boasted that his genealogy could be traced back to the pre-Bostanaian branch of that family, which, he claimed, on account of the deterioration of the exilarchate had renounced its claims thereto, preferring instead the scholar's life (Letter of Sherira Gaon, in Neubauer, l.c. i. 23, 33). The seal of his family was a lion, which was said to have been the emblem of the Judean kings (Ibn Daud, l.c.).

From: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=617&letter=S&search=Sherira%20gaon

89.138.192.76 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided the links in the comment for my last edit for how to correctly cite sources, but apparently User talk:89.138.192.76 hasn't yet found the time to deepen on the subject. It is not the burden of other editors to do this, but of the contributor. Editors are encouraged to remove this type of content from articles; it's nothing personal towards the contributor or the content. I'm not familiar with these writings being referred to or I would likely have lent a hand in correctly sourcing the statements.

I do have several issues with this contribution, but we haven't even yet met the minimum requirements for the contribution. The lineage is not a verifiable source, so if this is a point that would like to be made one will need to be presented. Basically note #1 is not by any stretch a verifiable source, #2 is inane by all accounts, and #3 is not how encyclopedia's cite sources. The validity of both sentences are highly questionable; they are contradicted by volumes of sources stating the contrary. I would feel it only responsible editing to have to bring those forward if this content is brought up to par, for it's certainly the minority's opinion (likely just his alone).

It may also be worth noting that I created this article from the content about him found in the Jewish Encyclopedia. This particular point was not found to be worth noting, so it's highly suspect that its worthy for inclusion here, as the experts compiling that publication didn't deem it worthy. Jeff (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How is note 1 not a verifiable source? It was a book published by an academy a millennium ago, which has been translated into half a dozen languages since. Heck, it's even quoted by Jewish Encyclopedia to point out some details regarding the Caliph of Bostanai's time period in the article on Bostanai.

Note 2 seems to me not to be a proof of the fact, but a list showing what Sherira was claiming.

I believe note 3 should be double checked and list its source, and perhaps page numbers, as the book appears to be a collection of information gleaned from other material of the period in question.

I would also like to see these volumes of sources stating the contrary that you speak of, and see if they're a verifiable source. Bostanai is the subject of many many fairy tales and therefor most written about him is nothing more than a fairy tale.

As for Jewish Encyclopedia, they themselves mention the point about Bostanai on Sherira's page. I'd also trust works such as Sherira's Iggereth, or Seder HaDoroth and the like, which actually documented going ons of the time period, over Jewish Encyclopedia which mentions some "legends." NachMS (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I have reinserted the material and based it on the Jewish Encyclopedia source. As other sources are found, more can be added. I hope you have no objections.

Nach, I found a copy of the Iggereth here in PDF). It is annoying to read, but you may be able to find the exact quote.

Also while this article is based on the Jewish Encyclopedia we do not have to be bound by it. The original article makes it clear that these were legends - not facts. I see nothing wrong with pointing out that these claims were historically viewed as dubious. Jon513 (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that PDF. A more recent edition can be found here in PDF, but the scan isn't as good, I'll see if I can find the quote in yours. I also found a PDF containing the Zuta which discusses these things here. I'll be back if/when I find the quote, wish I had an English copy, as I find that easier to skim. NachMS (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon: you wording on your edit was questionable, can you fix it? Anyways, in the PDF you linked, I managed to find one of Rav Sherira's quotes on the matter. On page 33 of the book (not PDF p33), he says that his family is from the royal family, but they chose teaching in the academy over being an exilarch, and he is not from the sons of Bostanai. Other pages via some googling mention that the Iggereth mentions Bostanai more than once, so I'll try to find more quotes. NachMS (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nach, you have the note #'s mixed up; I referred my concerns to how they were listed in order. #1 was a link to a random cite with an unsourced/unpublished genealogy, #2 was just a name not a source, and #3 was a Book title and ISBN. That book is indeed a credible source, you just didn't cite it correctly.

Please don't misrepresent what I've said or done. I don't appreciate it. I fully explained my reasoning, and I never said we had to stick to the JE version. I said no one there found him worth mentioning in their Bostanai article, so why is it awkwardly being stuck in here? The mention it gets in his own article doesn't even vaguely elude to the matter the way it's being asserted here. I read it twice and still don't get what his "pre-Bostanaian lineage" has to due with the price of oil in Thailand. The allusion is that his line are the true successors, and not Bostanai's, right? That's not where this type of challenge to his legitimacy would belong. It would seem more appropriate on the Exilarch page if that's where this is going.

With all due respect to all who are concerned, I couldn't care less about this guy, or what he had to say. If it can be shown that he said Bostanai was actually a unicorn I don't even care; JUST SOURCE IT CORRECTLY. I'm not looking to harass anyone, but these contributions are dubious. As it reads this moment it makes absolutely no sense; it's a fragmented sentence. There is no reason for this sentence to be at the bottom of this section. It's not contributing anything compelling to it. I read it and think "so what"? I actually liked the first version better; BUT sticking the name of a book in the ref list is not how we cite sources, and unsourced lineages off of random websites are not ever acceptable sources.

If what he had to say was so worthy of noting, then include something noteworthy please; and source it correctly. Actually, if the sentence could just be made to make sense that would be a great start. Then, find a source that actually verifies that "the veracity of this account was disputed by....". That source being cited verifies no such thing; only that he "boasted that his genealogy could be traced back to the pre-Bostanaian branch of that family" and makes absolutely no mention that he challenged the veracity of the legend. Please either fix this mess or remove it. Jeff (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

>I said no one there found him worth mentioning in their Bostanai article

When in fact one of the sources is Sherira. How can you say he's not worth quoting?

>The allusion is that his line are the true successors, and not Bostanai's, right?

Not at all. Who said that? It sounds like you're trying to read more into this because you would like to believe that Bostanai's family was the only remaining successors. All Sherira says is that the legend is completely false, Bostanai was not the last member of the Davidic line in his time, far from it. As to the source of the legend, it has been documented (we should find the exact source for this) that Bostanai's family at some point tried to discredit another Davidic family from any claims and started this legend, to make people believe that only they had any claims to the Exilarch.

>and unsourced lineages off of random websites are not ever acceptable sources

That page is filled with nothing but sources, mostly the Bible and the Iggereth, but that wasn't the point of it. It's a nice archive making a point, not a source.

>Then, find a source that actually verifies that "the veracity of this account was disputed by...."

I already did. We have a link to the PDF, and I listed what page to read it on. Furthermore, I dare you to find one source that says the legend is true. NachMS (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nach, I think we've started off on the wrong foot. Can we start over?

Hello Nach, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a moment to read some of the policies that govern content here. The pillars of verifiability, citing sources, and reliable sources. All content is governed by them. Your book and it's author are certainly worthy of quoting here; please cite it properly and there's no problem. Your lineage is not acceptable as a source because it's not a published source; websites are not reliable sources. You will find familiarizing yourself with these blue hot links will save you the trouble and frustration of dubious editing.

My concerns stem from violations of these policies. If I were more familiar with this subject and his book I could be of further assistance; but I'm not. These discussions are not to be about who's version of history is the right one. I am not concerned with who between these two was correct, legitimate, or what have you. Do not attempt to sway opinions on these discussions; they are to settle policy and content issues, not who's right and wrong. We should indeed as you say "find the exact source for this" if we want to mention it in the article. You put the cart before the horse in not doing so from the start. This discussion wouldn't have occurred had you done so. Two things now must happen or this content will again be removed: 1) the fragmented sentence must be correctly formed, and 2) a source that verifies "the veracity of this account was disputed by...." must be brought forward and included in the article. Your link to the PDF and the appropriate page number are on this discussion page; it needs to be in the article's ref's. You haven't sufficiently refuted my concerns. The sentence is in the article is fragmented, and not verified by the source being cited. Please fix these few things, and I have no further issues. Jeff (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

>Your book and it's author are certainly worthy of quoting here

It's not 'my' book. And it's quoted all over Wikipedia.

>Your lineage is not acceptable as a source

I never tried to pass it off as a source.

>These discussions are not to be about who's version of history is the right one. I am not concerned with who between these two was correct

Which two are you referring to? What version of history? It is documented fact that there is a legend, just as there is documented fact that the legend is untrue. I see no mention on this Wikipedia page or other material that I've read elsewhere that the legend is most assuredly true, and I doubt that you'll find such. If you can find a source that says the legend is true, then of course provide it so WP can be more NPOV.

>Do not attempt to sway opinions on these discussions; they are to settle policy and content issues, not who's right and wrong.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong, why do you believe such?

>Two things now must happen or this content will again be removed

So you believe in removing everything as opposed to fixing it up?

>The sentence is in the article is fragmented, and not verified by the source being cited. Please fix these few things

I would like that the original author of that sentence fix it, as I mentioned above. Please check the history so you can see who did what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NachMS (talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nach, you're mistaken me for someone who cares to indulge in inane tit for tat rebuttals like the one you're now carrying on here. I don't have to clarify any of these things for you. If you didn't get the spirit of what I said the first two time I explained myself plainly, then just reread it. I thought you and the anon contributor were the same person. My apologies. That anon user used that Loeb genealogy website as a source; I was apparently speaking to the wrong editor, but the point remains valid. And, I meant the book you've brought forward; I know you didn't write that in 1000 AD. And yes, in case this is news to you, it's not the job of other editors to fix sloppy unsourced contributions. It's POLICY to remove them for the sake of the article. Please familiarize yourself with them instead of harassing me about it. The sentence is still fragemented and unsource; absolutely unacceptable. If no one familiar with how it should read comes forward to correct it, it will be removed. Since you already know where the reference is in the book, why are you not "fixing it up", but leaving it for someone else? I don't care in the least, but right now it's still a fragmented sentence that makes no sense, and the source linked to it doesn't verify the statement. Why are you contributing to this discussion and unwilling to contribute to the article since you're clearly an expert on the subject? Jeff (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bostanai legend is that is Bostanai was the SOLE DAVIDIC HEIR. By Sherira Gaon stating that he is descended from David, but not by Bostanai he is disputing this claim. This is currently sourced by the Jewish Encyclopedia. You are correct that I mistyped the sentence - I believe it is fixed now.

Also, it is not policy to remove all unsourced statement except when dealing with biographies of living people. Wikipedia was built on stubs and good faith. And while I agree with you that sourcing is important, this does not mean that you cannot give an article time to evolve.

The policy that you seem to be forgetting is wp:bite. Jon513 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious, I've seen rather lengthy discussion for content before, but all this for one sentence? Geesh. I see what you're saying about Gaon, but no one but himself ever purported him to be the Throne of the Exilarch; he was a descendant of David's but never had a claim to the throne. Whatever. Thanks for fixing that. That was all I was asking; I didn't just remove it after this discussion began even when it was a mess, so your concerns about my assuming good faith are bit unfounded. I did, and pointed out my concerns here, didn't I? Again, Geesh. Jeff (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)